LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  P.  J.  McCUMBER 


OF  NORTH  DAKOTA 


IN  THE 


SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


JUNE  18,  1919 


n 


C*3 


124390—19542 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1919 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.    P.  J.    McCUMBEE. 


AKE    EUROPEAN    QUAHRELS    OF    NO    CONCERN    TO    THE    ONITBD    STATES? 

Mr.  McCUMBER.  Mr.  President,  the  very  first  question  that 
challenges  our  attention  in  the  matter  of  a  league  of  nations  is 
the  question  of  whether  a  war  in  Europe  is  a  matter  of  concern 
to  the  United  States.  The  ultraopponents  of  any  league  of 
nations  assert  that  European  quarrels  and  European  battles  are 
no  concern  of  ours.  If  that  be  true,  we  may  well  pause  before 
obligating  ourselves  to  make  them  our  concern.  Is  it  true? 

Mr.  President,  on  the  28th  day  of  June,  1914,  in  one  of  the  most 
insignificant  countries  of  Europe,  a  country  so  small  that  its 
exact  location  at  that  time  was  scarcely  known  by  the  American 
people,  a  man  and  his  wife  were  murdered  by  a  little  band  of 
political  assassins.  Had  this  murder  been  committed  upon  an 
ordinary  family  it  would  not  have  been  considered  of  sufficient 
importance  to  have  justified  the  expense  of  a  cablegram  to  this 
country.  But  as  the  victims  of  these  misled  malefactors  were 
of  the  Hapsburg  family,  the  world  was  notified  of  the  occurrence. 
Had  anyone  then  suggested  that  this  act  might  bring  on  a  great 
world  war,  his  mental  balance  would  have  been  questioned.  The 
world  was  to  civilized  in  the  year  1914  to  permit  the  destruction 
of  millions  of  innocent  men  because  one  man  stabbed  or  shot  an- 
other to  death.  Austria  would  demand  that  the  criminals  be 
brought  to  justice  and  that  demand  would  be  acceded  to  by  Serbia. 
If  it  were  not  agreed  to,  Austria  would  send  an  armed  force  into 
Serbia  and  compel  not  only  the  execution  of  the  criminals  but 
an  apology  to  the  Austrian  Nation.  And  even  if  it  did  bring 
on  a  war  between  Austria  and  Serbia,  we  need  not  concern  our- 
selves about  it.  Let  those  discordant  Balkan  States  settle  their 
own  scores  with  each  other;  America  had  nothing  to  do  with 
their  quarrels. 

Well,  Mr.  President,  that  murder  has  already  cost  the  lives  of 
more  than  50,000  young  American  boys,  and  so  it  did  become 
our  concern.  We  can  not  look  upon  I  heir  fresh-made  graves, 
scarce  yet  softened  by  nature's  verdant  shroud,  without  yielding 
our  belief  that  it  was  no  concern  of  ours. 

That  murder  has  cost  us  about  $40.000.000,000  up  to  the  pres- 
ent time,  and  before  we  are  through  $100,000,000,000  will  have 
been  paid  out  by  the  American  people.  Is  a  conflict  in  Europe 
which  compels  us  to  load  that  enormous  debt  upon  the  American 
people  for  a  century  a  conflict  which  does  not  concern  us?  Our 
Civil  War  cost  us  only  about  five  or  six  billions  of  dollars,  or 

124390—19542 


only  about  one-eighth  of  the  cost  of  one  year  of  this  war.  Is  it 
no  concern  of  ours  that  there  shall  be  left  at  the  close  of  this 
conflict  the  possibility,  yes,  the  probability,  that  another  worse 
war  shall  blacken  the  earth? 

About  8,000,000  boys,  the  best  boys  of  the  great  white  race, 
were  killed  in  battle  or  died  of  wounds.  Close  to  20,000,000  boys 
of  the  same  blood  have  died  because  of  this  war.  Of  course 
only  a  very  small  proportion  of  them  were  our  boys ;  but  they 
were  boys  with  the  same  ambitions,  the  same  lofty  hopes  and 
aspirations,  and  in  whom  the  love  of  life  was  equally  strong- 
boys  with  mothers  like  the  mothers  of  our  boys — their  hopes, 
their  ambitions,  their  lofty  aspirations  all  buried  with  their 
mangled  bodies.  And  yet  I  hear  Senators  still  say  this  is  no 
concern  of  ours.  Twenty  million  young  girls  of  this  generation, 
the  best  young  girls  in  the  world,  deprived  of  their  God-given 
right  to  reign  queen  of  heart  and  home,  must  now  go  down  to 
their  graves  husbandless,  homeless,  childless. 

But,  say  the  advocates  of  American  isolation,  this  is  no  con- 
cern of  ours.  We  are  big  enough  to  take  care  of  ourselves. 
Let  other  nations  do  the  same.  We  do  not  want  to  be  brought 
into  European  squabbles. 

Says  the  Senator  from  California  [Mr.  JOHNSON],  speaking  of 
these  European  countries: 

We  do  not  need  them  as  partners.  They  require  us.  They  yield  to 
us  nothing.  They  can  yield  to  us  nothing.  We  give  to  them  every- 
thing. Wfc  can  protect  our  borders  for  centuries  to  come  just  as  we 
have  in  the  centuries  past.  The  Lord  has  given  us  geographical  isola- 
tion and  the  Lord  has  denied  just  that  thing  to  the  different  races  of 
Europe. 

And  he  might  have  added,  "And  so  the  Lord  be  praised." 
What  do  we  get  out  of  it?  asks  the  Senator  from  California. 
Do  we  ask  ourselves  that  question  in  the  thousands  of  acts  of 
generosity  by  which  we  gladden  the  lives  of  others?  If  the 
Senator  does  not  ask  himself  that  question,  and  I  know  he  does 
not,  then  why  does  he  insist  that  his  Nation,  which  he  loves 
better  than  himself,  should  ask  it?  If  the  question  means,  What 
are  we  to  get  out  of  it  from  a  financial  or  a  territorial  stand- 
point, I  freely  admit  that  we  do  not  need  the  assistance  of  any 
power  on  earth  to  protect  our  rights.  I  admit  that  we  are  so 
much  more  powerful  than  any  other  single  nation  to-day,  so 
secure  in  our  vast  territorial  expanse,  in  our  geographical  posi- 
tion, and  in  our  material  resources  that  we  are  practically  im- 
mune from  assault.  But  are  we  thereby  relieved  from  any  duty 
toward  the  rest  of  the  world,  or  does  that  immunity  impose 
upon  us  a  greater  duty  toward  those  who  are  not  so  protected  as 
we  are?  What  is  the  true  American  answer?  There  can  be 
but  one  answer :  The  God  of  international  justice,  by  His  special 
favors,  has  given  to  us  in  territorial  extent,  in  that  splendid  isola- 
tion, in  our  vast  resources,  in  our  mighty  population,  has  by  His 
very  law  of  compensation  imposed  upon  us  a  greater  duty  than 
upon  the  less  fortunate  people  of  the  world  to  shield  the  weak 
and  to  compel  international  right. 

Mr.  President,  there  is  no  moral  duty  incumbent  upon  any 
man  in  his  relation  to  his  fellow  man  that  is  not  equally  incum- 
bent upon  a  nation  in  its  relation  to  every  other  nation.  Does 
any  man  deny  that  proposition?  What  would  you  say  of  the 
strong,  vigorous  man  who  would  stand  by  while  another  strong 

124300—19542 


man  was  beating  a  weak  child  to  death,  and  idly  remark  M  It 
Ife  no  concern  of  mine;  it  is  not  my  child."  What  would  you 
say  of  a  strong,  vigorous  swimmer  who  would  stand  on  the  shore 
and  see  a  woman  straggling  in  the  waves  that  would  soon  be 
her  death,  reaching  her  white  arms  and  crying  for  help,  while 
he  folding  his  muscular  arms  announces :  "  Oh,  that  is  no  con- 
cern of  mine,  she  is  not  my  wife  or  daughter."  Mr.  President, 
this  doctrine  of  "  no  concern  of  ours  "  is  a  shameful  and  mon- 
strous doctrine  from  every  standpoint  of  national  morality. 

"  Oh,"  but  say  the  opponents  of  the  league  of  nations,  "  we 
can  make  up  our  minds  what  to  do  when  the  occasion  arises." 
Well,  Mr.  President,  what  I  want  us  to  do  is  to  be  right  there 
on  the  spot,  with  the  contractual  right  in  our  hand  when  the 
occasion  arises.  Had  the  United  States  been  right  on  the  spot 
with  an  agreement  signed  by  us  and  signed  by  Germany,  that 
Germany  would  not  make  war  on  France  or  any  other  country 
without  submitting  to  a  league  of  nations  the  question  of  the 
righteousness  of  her  cause,  the  world  would  have  been  spared 
this  awful  conflagration  with  its  consequent  miseries  which  can 
never  be  forgotten  or  forgiven.  You  know  and  I  know  that  so 
long  as  the  present  conception  of  international  right  continues, 
the  conception  that  sovereignty  has  no  bounds  or  limitations! 
we  will  not  interfere  unless  some  right  of  ours  is  attacked! 
What  we  want  to-day  is  an  international  law  on  this  subject,  a 
law  that  will  declare  that  war  by  one  nation  is  a  matter 'of 
concern  to  every  other  nation,  and  that  no  unjust  war  shall  be 
waged  by  any  nation.  Now,  that  is  just  exactly  what  this  league 
of  nations  does. 

So,  Mr.  President,  all  this  prating  about  what  we  will  do  in 
the  future  is  worse  than  idle  talk.  We  will  do  in  the  future 
just  what  we  have  done  in  the  past  under  a  like  conception  of 
sovereign  rights.  If  there  is  no  league  of  nations,  the  present 
world  understanding  that  a  war  waged  by  one  great  power  to 
annihilate  another  is  not  an  assault  upon  other  nations  of 
the  world,  and  that  no  other  nation  is  bound  to  take  up  the 
cause  of  the  weaker,  will  continue  to  prevail.  You  talk  about 
our  entering  this  war  for  the  cause  of  a  great  world  principle. 
The  man  who  makes  that  assertion  knows  that  he  falsifies  the 
record. 

He  knows  that  we  never  uttered  one  word  about  our  entrance 
into  the  war  being  for  the  cause  of  humanity.  We  based  our  right 
of  action  solely  upon  the  ground  that  by  the  acts  of  Germany  she 
had  made  war  upon  us.  Of  course,  when  we  got  into  the  war  we 
were  naturally  fighting  the  cause  of  humanity.  But  it  was  not 
the  cause  of  humanity  which  brought  us  into  it.  Now,  I  want  to 
put  ourselves  in  such  a  position  that  we  shall  never  feel  it  neces- 
sary to  reiterate  that  falsehood  in  order  to  place  ourselves 
right  before  our  own  people  or  the  world.  I  want  this  country 
to  be  in  a  position  where  she  can  assert  without  any  equivoca'- 
tion,  "  This  is  our  mutual  agreement,  signed  by  all  of  us,  that 
no  one  of  us  will  wage  a  war  of  conquest,  and  that  we  will  act 
together  to  prevent  the  murder  of  millions  of  innocent  human 
beings  for  the  selfish  ends  of  any  one  nation."  I  want  this 
country  to  be  in  a  position  that  it  can  say  "  Under  the  letter  of 
this  bond  and  for  the  defense  of  this  principle  we  command 
you  to  halt  your  armies,  and  to  maintain  that  principle  we  will 

124300 — 19512 


consecrate  the  blood  of  our  men,  the  tears  of  our  women,  and 
every  resource  of  our  Nation." 

We  knew  all  along  just  what  Germany  had  in  mind ;  we  knew 
the  course  of  instruction  which  had  been  given  to  her  people 
from  every  possible  source,  that  her  destiny  lay  in  the  conquest 
and  destruction  of  her  neighbors.  We  knew  her  scheme  of 
Mitteleuropa.  We  knew  her  purpose  of  world  domination.  \Ve 
knew  that  she  intended  to  destroy  Belgium  and  annex  the  most 
valuable  portions  of  France  as  the  first  step  toward  the  ac- 
complishment of  her  world-domination  idea,  and  that  was  the 
time  that  we  should  have  called  the  halt.  But  we  did  not  have 
the  right  under  international  law  or  under  any  agreement  to 
demand  that  she  refrain  from  that  hellish  purpose.  Had  we 
had  the  agreement  proposed  in  this  league  of  nations,  then, 
standing  upon  our  contractual  rights,  we  would  have  called 
her  to  account,  and  Germany  would  have  desisted  and  the  world 
would  have  been  saved  from  these  awful  wrongs  and  suffer- 
ings. We  do  not  want  this  country  or  any  other  country  or 
the  world  to  again  be  placed  in  such  a.  position  of  shameful 
impotency. 

And  why,  I  ask  you,  do  you  boast  of  our  fighting  this  war  for 
the  sake  of  Immunity  and  for  the  higher  principles  of  interna- 
tional justice,  while  in  the  same  breath  you  declare  against  any 
obligation  that  shall  bind  us,  in  connection  with  other  great 
nations  of  the  world,  to  prevent  such  war  of  injustice  and  wrong? 
Is  a  war  to  prevent  the  accomplishment  of  an  international 
felony  right,  but  an  agreement  to  prevent  the  initiation  of  the 
felonious  purpose  wrong?  Let  us  at  least  attempt  consistency. 

Mr.  President,  the  one  regrettable  thing  to-day  is  that  this 
war  was  carried  on  so  far  from  us  that  we  saw  but  little  of  its 
horrors,  that  we  got  into  it  so  late  that  we  suffered  but  little, 
comparatively,  of  its  sacrifices,  and  that  our  people  knew  so 
little  of  the  destitution  in  its  wake.  The  closest  estimate 
places  the  number  of  soldiers  who  were  killed  or  died  of  wounds 
from  the  beginning  of  the  war  to  November  11,  1918,  at  nearly 
8,000,000,  and  there  have  been  more  people  killed  in  Russia 
since  Russia's  surrender  to  Bolshevism  and  German  machina- 
tions than  there  were  of  Russian  troops  killed  in  the  war.  I 
think  it  safe  to  say  as  a  fair  estimate,  if  we  include  with  the 
soldiers  the  civilian  populations  that  were  killed  or  starved  to 
death  or  whose  death  was  directly  attributable  to  this  war, 
that  up  to  the  present  time  the  war  has  caused  the  death  of 
more  than  20,000,000  persons. 

I  wish  it  were  possible  for  each  of  us  to  realize  the  suffer- 
ings of  one  dying  soldier,  to  see  the  stroke  and  hear  the  thud  as 
a  rifle  butt  beats  to  a  mass  the  head  of  a  poor  wounded  boy, 
to  view  the  agonizing  gasps  of  a  drowning  man,  to  watch  as  the 
last  breath  passes  the  tender  lips  of  a  famished  child.  Then  I 
wish  it  were  possible  to  comprehend  the  multiplication  of  those 
things  twenty  million  times  over.  We  would  then  realize  this 
war.  It  is  well  that  there  is  a  limit  to  our  power  to  realize 
horrors,  else  the  whole  world  would  die  of  anguish.  I  wish 
we  could  look  upon  the  army  of  millions  upon  millions  of  arm- 
less, legless,  eyeless  men  who  will  suffer  the  agony  of  wounds 
all  the  balance  of  their  lives.  I  wish  \ve  could  fully  realize 
for  one  moment  the  awful  grief  of  a  mother  whose  brave  boy 
went  down  to  a  watery  grave  in  defense  of  his  country.  He 
124390—19542 


G 

suffered  but  once,  but  his  death  agony  is  repeated  again  and 
again  every  day  of  the  life  of  this  devoted  mother.  Multiply 
that  by  the  number  of  all  the  mothers  whose  sons  died  in  this 
conflict  and  we  get  even  then  only  a  slight  conception  of  all  the 
suffering  this  war  has  caused. 

Mr.  President,  if  we  could  do  this,  nothing  on  earth  would 
prevent  us  from  demanding  immediately  a  combination  of  all 
the  peoples  of  the  world  to  prevent  a  repetition  of  this  war. 

I  can  not  understand  how  any  man  whose  heart  throbs  for 
the  woes  and  cares  of  humanity,  whose  mind  is  capable  of 
grasping  the  awful  misery  inflicted  by  this  most  ungodly  con- 
flict, can  fail  to  labor  with  all  his  power,  with  all  his  heart  and 
influence,  to  shield  poor  humanity  from  another  such  awful 
crime. 

And  again  when  I  come  to  the  present  cost  of  this  war  to  the 
principal  nations  engaged  in  it,  I  find  that  it  aggregates  little 
less  than  $200,000,000,000.  It  is  an  awful  debt  to  load  upon 
these  impoverished  countries.  And  yet  with  interest  and  pen- 
sions and  other  obligations,  that  two  hundred  billions  will  prob- 
ably be  increased  to  two  thousand  billions  before  the  debt  is 
wiped  out  and  the  last  pension  paid. 

Senators,  is  such  an  impoverishment  of  the  world  as  that  no 
concern  of  ours? 

In  making  this  estimate  of  the  cost  of  the  war,  we  might 
yet  add  at  least  twenty-five  billions  for  property  destroyed.  The 
British  Empire  lost  in  value  of  ships  and  shipping  alone  more 
than  $4,500,000,000.  The  Allies  alone  lost  404  warships  with  a 
displacement  of  1,364,000  tons.  The  enemy  lost  216  warships  with 
a  displacement  of  518,000  tons. 

The  Allies  and  neutrals  lost  in  merchant  tonnage  15,027,718 
gross  tons,  of  which  Great  Britain  alone  lost  8,889,659  tons. 
The  tonnage  lost  to  the  world  was  15,336,922  gross  tons.  Nor- 
way, a  neutral  country,  a  seafaring  nation,  the  livelihood  of 
whose  people  is  gained  in  great  part  by  braving  the  waves  of  the 
ocean,  lost  of  her  merchant  marine  1,177,000  gross  tons.  She 
lost  more  tonnage  than  any  country  engaged  in  the  war  except 
Great  Britain.  Norway  had  committed  no  offense  against  Ger- 
many, and  yet  she  was  made  to  suffer  in  this  war  a  greater  loss 
in  merchant  marine  than  any  belligerent  except  Great  Britain. 
Is  a  war  which  results  in  such  loss  to  a  neutral  friendly  nation 
of  no  concern  to  us? 

But  you  say  we  can  continue  a  peaceful  policy  with  the  world, 
without  binding  ourselves  to  act  in  any  particular  way.  Yes ; 
that  is  exactly  what  we  were  saying  for  years  prior  to  1914, 
and  especially  prior  to  1917.  But  we  found  that  the  world  was 
not  so  large  that  we  could  escape  being  drawn  into  the  vortex 
of  a  European  conflagration.  And  while  we  scarcely  got  into 
the  real  conflict  before  its  close,  while  not  more  than  a  quarter 
of  a  million  American  soldiers  were  on  the  actual  battle  line  at 
any  one  time,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  this  war  has  cost  the  United 
States  not  less  than  $40,000,000,000.  And  before  the  principal 
and  interest  and  pensions  have  been  fully  met,  it  is  a  conserva- 
tive estimate  that  we  shall  have  expended  not  less  than 
$100,000,000,000.  Have  you  contemplated  what  that  means 
to  us? 

Mr.  President,  one  of  the  most  beautiful  structures  in  the 
United  States  is  our  Public  Library  Building,  facing  Capitol 
124390—19542 


Square.  That  building  cost  about  $6,000,000,  less  than  one-thirxl 
the  cost  of  a  modern  battleship.  That  beautiful  structure,  glad- 
dening the  hearts  of  millions  of  people,  may  last  as  long  as  the 
earth  lasts.  The  battleship  -will  become  obsolete  in  10  years. 
With  just  what  money  this  single  year  of  war  will  have  cost  us 
we  could  build  in  the  United  States  17,000  of  these  build- 
ing.s,  350  of  them  in  each  State  in  the  Union,  one  in  each  city, 
town,  and  village.  With  this  sum  we  could  purchase  all  the 
flour  at  prewar  prices  and  population,  the  American  people, 
would  consume  in  154  years.  The  cost  of  one  year  of  this  war 
would  pay  all  the  expenses  necessary  to  relieve  all  the  distress, 
hunger,  or  sickness  of  all  the  people  for  a  hundred  years.  It 
would  save  the  lives  annually  of  more  than  100,000  invalids 
afflicted  with  the  great  white  plague  who  are  too  poor  to 
change  their  location  or  secure  the  rest  necessary  for  their 
convalescence.  The  expenses  of  the  four  years  of  this  great  war 
could  change  this  old  world  from  a  dingy  workshop  into  a 
paradise  for  a  whole  century.  Arc  European  wars  of  no  con- 
cern to  us? 

No,  Mr.  President,  these  premises  are  wrong.  They  are  our  con- 
cern ;  and  if  there  is  any  one  great  duty  resting  upon  this  coun- 
try at  the  close  of  this  sanguinary  struggle,  if  that  struggle  has 
made  one  thing  in  the  world  clear  and  definite,  it  is  the  com- 
manding duty  of  this  country,  the  country  most  able  to  prevent 
war  and  without  whose  assistance  such  prevention  is  impossible, 
to  take  the  lead  in  this  great  world  movement  for  the  settlement 
of  international  disputes  by  peaceful  means. 

Mr.  President,  there  was  speaking  in  this  country  some  lit- 
tle time  ago  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Philip  Gibb's,  who  had 
spent  four  years  at  the  front.  On  the  7th  of  March,  1919,  he 
published  in  the  New  York  Times  an  article  which  ought  to  be 
read  by  every  American  statesman.  He  admits  in  that  article 
that  the  United  States  could  get  along  without  calling  upon 
Europe  for  assistance.  But  Europe— the  innocent  people  of 
Europe,  the  peaceful  people  of  Europe,  the  people  who  do  not 
wish  to  injure  their  fellow  men,  and  whose  aims  are  noble  and 
ideal — need  the  United  States  to  protect  them  against  a  repeti- 
tion of  this  awful  tragedy.  I  want  to  road  a  few  excerpts 
from  that  article.  He  says : 

But  what  the  American  people  I  have  mot  do  not  understand,  what 
it  is  difficult  for  them  to  understand,  is  the  patient  yearning  of  great 
masses  of  people  for  American  aid  in  liberating  them  from  the  repeti- 
tion of  horrors  through  which  they  have  passed  in  agony. 

That,  Mr.  President,  is  Europe's  call  to  America.  Shall  the 
call  go  unanswered?  Are  we  to  reply  that  this  is  no  concern 
of  ours?  Are  we  to  ask,  as  have  some  Senators  asked,  what 
are  we  to  get  out  of  this.? 

Again,  he  says : 

Among  the  soldiers  of  the  French  Army,  as  well  as  among  those  of 
the  British  Army,  there  was  from  the  beginning  a  sense  of  despair  that 
civilization  itself  should  have  been  dragged  down  to  such  depths  of 
degradation  in  the  filth  of  the  Imttle  fields,  with  their  wholesale 
slaughter  of  youth  and  of  life's  beauty  and  decency.  Their  hatred  of 
the  Germans,  who  were  the  direct  cause  of  this,  did  not  blind  them  to 
the  large  truth  that  the  whole  structure,  and  philosophy  of  Europe  had 
been  damnably  guilty,  and  that  if  it;  had  been  different,  not  even  the 
(Jerinans  would  or  could  have  let  those  devils  loose  upon  the  boyhood  of 
the  nations  and  upon  women  and  children. 

Mr.  President,  do  we  join  them  in  this  indictment?     No  man 
dare  question  the  truth  of  the  statement.    Are  we  willing,  then, 
124390—19542 


8 

to  remedy  the  wrong  by  shouldering  the  responsibility,  not 
necessarily  for  our  preservation,  but  in  the  name  of  God  and 
humanity;  shoulder  it  for  the  preservation  of  the  iunocent, 
suffering  peoples  of  Europe?  I  say  the  true  American  heart, 
uninfluenced  by  false  or  misleading  criticisms,  will  ever  an- 
swer, "  Yes." 

Again,  he  says: 

Over  and  over  again  in  the  early  days,  French  officers  and  men  said. 


of  times  nor  scores  of  times,  by  bloody  and  bandaged  men,  but  hun- 
dreds of  times.  It  was  the  common,  general,  passionate  thought  And 
hundreds  of  times  on  the  British  front,  in  trenches  and  in  dugouts,  and 
la  officers  messes  our  own  men  spoke  to  me  in  a  similar  line  of  thought 
Deeper  than  their  hatred  of  the  enemy  who  had  brought  this  thing  upon 
them,  was  their  hatred  of  statesmen  and  politicians  and  men  of  wealth 
and  learning  who  had  failed  to  foresee  the  horrors  ahead  and  who  had 
gttne  on  in  the  foolish  old  way  supporting  balances  of  power,  framing 
secret  alliances,  influencing  national  hatreds  and  rivalries,  and  main- 
taining the  old  philosophy  of  material  force  to  hold  and  to  grab, 
loung  English  officers  of  good  family  argued  passionately  in  the  face 
of  death  that  all  our  social  structure  was  wrong,  and  that  there  was 
no  hope  for  humanity  for  which  thev  were  going  to  die — they  knew 
that — unless  some  new  relationship  between  nations  could  be  estab- 
lished giving  at  least  some  postponement  and  respite  to  the  spasms 
of  slaughter  between  periods  of  so-called  peace,  which  were  but  a 
preparation  for  a  new  massacre  of  youth. 

And  I  say  candidly,  Senators,  that  you  may  defeat  this  treaty, 
this  league  of  nations;  you  may  scatter  abroad  criticisms  that 
are  unjust  or  baseless;  you  may  appeal  to  a  national  pride  and 
to  the  selfish  side  of  our  natures  and  thereby  destroy  at  this 
time  the  hope  that  has  been  in  the  heart  of  every  thinking, 
feeling,  loving  human  being  for  centuries  that  the  time  would 
come  when  the  same  law  which  governs  the  rights  of  indi- 
viduals would  be  applied  to  shield  the  lives  of  nations.  But 
as  surely  as  this  is  defeated  and  the  world  suffers  another  such 
calamity,  deeper  than  the  hatred  of  the  enemy  will  be  the 
hatred  toward  the  statesmen  of  the  world  who  have  failed  in 
this  great  opportunty  to  league  together  to  shield  poor,  inno- 
cent human  beings  from  such  sufferings  and  calamities  as  have 
been  visited  upon  them  because  there  was  no  law  to  check  a 
great,  powerful  nation  from  criminal  aggression. 

Again,  Mr.  Gibbs  says: 

That  conviction  has  not  been  killed  by  victory.  It  is  in  the  hearts 
of  the  living  as  it  was  in  the  souls  of  the  dead. 'and  I  write  of  what  I 
know.  It  is  in  the  hearts  of  the  multitudes  of  women  who  gave  their 
first  born — sometimes  their  .second  and  third  aud  fourth — to  the  de- 
vouring monster  of  war.  It  is  hot  in  the  brains  of  millions  of  workers 
who  watch  (he  politicians  of  the  world  with  increasing  hatred  and 
distrust  because  of  their  failure  to  avert  the  frightful  catastrophe,  and 
they  are  tinkering  now  with  problems  which  must  be  handled  largely 
with  an  unshrinking  courage  in  order  to  make  the  world  clean  of  the 
foul  outrage  against  civilized  ideals  on  these  corpse-strewn  fields  in 
I  ranee. 

You  may  eliminate  it  from  the  hearts  of  these  people  by 
unjust  and  false  interpretation,  but  if  you  do  so,  in  my  candid 
judgment,  you  are  committing  a  grievous  wrong  against  the 
best  impulses  of  the  best  people  in  the  world,  including  our 
own : 

Again,  he  speaks  in  prophetic  words  when  he  says : 
America  has  the  supreme  chance  of  any  power  in   the  world  to-day, 
because  she  is  looked  upon  by  the  peoples  of  Europe  as  a  fair,  unselfish, 
and  democratic  arbitrator,  aloof  from  their  rivalries  and  untainted  by 
the  disease  which  infected  their  civilization. 
124390 — 19542 


9 

Quoting  again : 

.  It  was  the  thoughts  of  men  who  fought  and  suffered  that  which 
will  form  the  motive  power  behind  the  league  of  nations.  There  were 
certain  elementary  thoughts  in  the  minds  of  those  men.  They  saw 
before  them  the  long  stretches  of  chalked  German  trenches  and  behind 
those  trenches  vas  the  enemy.  They  knew  it  was  that  enemy  that  had 
brought  this  thing  to  pass  and  that  unless  they  killed  the  Germans 
the  Germans  would  kill  them.  These  men  knew  that  unless  they 
smashed  the  German  front  Germany  would  smash  England  and  France. 
These  men  asked  why  had  this  thing  come  to  pass.  They  wanted  to 
know  the  meaning  of  it  all.  Why,  they  asked,  are  men  with  centuries 
of  civilization  behind  them  thrown  into  these  filthy,  vermin-infested 
holes?  Why  is  everything  that  life  holds  most  sacred  destroyed?  Why 
did  this  thing  happen  in  the  twentieth  century,  so  long  after  Christ? 

It  happened,  Mr.  President,  because  the  great  nations  of  the 
world  had  never  adopted  as  a  code  of  international  law  that  no 
nation  had  a  right  to  destroy  another  nation,  to  seize  its  do- 
mains or  murder  its  people.  Infinitely  worse  than  that,  the 
right  to  commit  such  crimes  lias  been,  recognized  from  time  im- 
memorial as  a  right  incident  to  sovereignty  which  no  other 
country  could  dispute,  so  long  as  its  interest  was  not  directly 
jeopardized.  That  is  why  every  nation  for  a  hundred  years  has 
stood  idly  by  while  Turkish  soldiers  have  massacred  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  defenseless  Armenians.  The  nations  have  simply  fol- 
lowed the  policy  so  ardently  proclaimed  by  Senators,  that  while 
they  regret  such  atrocities,  really  it  is  not  their  national  con- 
cern. That  is  why,  Mr.  President,  with  full  cognizance  of 
Germany's  purpose,  with  full  knowledge  of  the  atrocities  com- 
mitted by  command  of  her  officers,  we  never  raised  a  hand  to 
stay  her  until  she  had  murdered  our  own  people.  Nay,  further, 
not  until  she  had  shaken  the  mailed  fist  in  our  face  and  sworn 
that  she  would  continue  to  kill  our  people  wherever  found  upon 
the  high  seas. 

And  it  may  be  further  answered  that  this  thing  will  continue 
to  happen  until  this  principle  is  written  into  international  law 
by  all  the  nations  and  the  honor  of  each  and  all  pledged  to  up- 
hold it  with  whatever  force  may  be  necessary. 

Again  says  this  writer : 

Now,  these  men,  those  who  survive,  are  going  back  to  England  and  to 
Canada.  And  they  are  thinking  more  positively  and  more  silently  than 
they  did  on  the  battle  field.  I  know  that  in  England  and  in  France 
these  thoughts  are  setting  among  the  people  of  these  nations  and  these 
thoughts  are  being  talked  from  man  to  man,  and  what  I  say  applies  not 
only  to  our  side  but  it  is  also  what  is  happening  on  the  German  side. 

I  admit  that  the  sentiment  for  a  world  league  is  not  as  strong 
in  this  country,  because  few,  comparatively,  of  our  vast  popu- 
lation ever  saw  even  one  battle  field.  Slight,  in  comparison  with 
our  population,  were  our  losses.  Other  countries  bathed  in  blood, 
starved  and  emaciated,  their  cities  full  of  cripples — armless, 
legless,  sightless  men  are  calling  to  us  whose  wounds  were  slight 
to  help  them  to  rescue  themselves  from  national  hatreds  and 
jealousies  which  too  many  regard  as  elements  of  patriotism. 
Shall  we  in  the  arrogance  of  our  power  and  self-sufficiency  turn 
a  deaf  ear  to  their  entreaties? 

HOW    PURPOSES    OF    LEAGUE    EFFECTUATED. 

Mr.  President,  after  contemplating  these  horrors  of  war,  after 

placing  in  the  balance  on  the  one  side  whatever  of  cupidity  and 

purely  selfish  considerations  we  may  be  possessed  of,  and  on  the 

other  side  our   humanitarian   impulses;    after   eliminating   the 

124390—19542 


10 

hatreds  we  may  have  against  one  foreign  nation  and  partiality 
for  some  other  foreign  nation ;  after  eliminating  all  political  ad- 
vantages to  be  gained  by  playing  upon  race  or  hyphenated  Ameri- 
can prejudices ;  after  concluding  to  forego  tail  twisting  either  for 
our  own  edification  or  the  edification  of  others,  after  conclud- 
ing that  this  country  has  a  higher  and  nobler  destiny  than  mere 
material  gains,  higher  and  nobler  aspirations  than  mere  na- 
tional prowess,  and  having  finally  concluded  that  this,  the 
greatest  Nation  of  the  earth  in  population,  wealth,  and  resources 
has  by  virtue  of  her  transcendent  position  incurred  a  moral 
responsibility  toward  the  weaker  and  less  favorably  situated 
countries  of  the  world  and  ought,  therefore,  to  exercise  her 
mighty  influence  and  power  for  the  preservation  of  peace,  the 
settlement  of  international  disputes  by  peaceful  means,  guided 
by  right  and  justice — ought  to  help  save  the  people  of  the  world 
from  another  such  awful  calamity  as  they  have  just  passed 
through,  we  are  brought  face  to  face  with  this  question :  By 
what  character  of  agreement  between  nations  can  we  best  secure 
this  result?  Of  course,  not  one  of  us  would  have  written  this 
covenant  just  as  it  has  come  to  us,  either  in  its  original  or 
revised  form.  Some  of  us  would  have  inserted  additional  and 
explanatory  clauses  and  definitions  and  some  of  us  would  have 
opposed  any  kind  of  agreement  whatsoever  for  the  preservation 
of  peace.  And,  I  might  add,  another  class  would  not  have  ac- 
cepted any  agreement  unless  it  gave  to  this  country  special 
advantages  over  every  other  nation  of  the  world. 

But,  Mr.  President,  this  covenant  represents  the  deliberations 
of  nations,  some  very  important,  some  very  small  and  weak. 
It  deals  with  complex  situations  in  Europe,  both  as  to  races 
and  boundaries.  It  comes  to  us  as  a  compromise  compact,  which 
all  of  these  great  nations  believe  will  accomplish  the  purpose 
of  preventing  any  stupendous  world  war  in  the  future.  To  secure 
the  support  of  this  country  special  concessions  have  been  given 
to  us.  Our  Monroe  doctrine,  which  lias  never  been  acquiesced 
in  by  any  European  power  except  Great  Britain,  is  by  this  in- 
strument given  a  world  sanction. 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  now  put  to  the  test  as  to  whether 
our  boast  of  special  humanitarian  impulses  is  but  the  bragga- 
docio mouthings  of  an  insincere  people  or  the  deep  heart  con- 
viction of  a  Christian  nation. 

I  think  none  of  us  will  claim  that  the  instrument  clearly  and 
definitely  conveys  its  purposes.  But  that  it  is  susceptible  of 
the  construction  many  opponents  have  given  it,  and  to  the 
criticism  based  upon  such  construction,  I  most  emphatically  deny. 
During  my  20  years  as  a  Member  of  this  body  I  recall  but  one 
or  two  instances  in  which  an  instrument  has  been  so  viciously 
and  unjustifiably  assailed. 

Allegations  have  been  made  and  published  to  the  people  of 
this  country  concerning  the  powers  granted  to  the  council  or 
assembly  provided  for  in  this  instrument  and  the  dangers  to 
this  country  that  are  as  false  to  the  context  and  the  true  meaning 
of  the  instrument  as  could  possibly  be  imagined.  It  is  my 
purpose  to  analyze  several  sections  of  this  compact,  so  far  as  it 
relates  to  the  league  for  permanent  peace,  and  to  present  its 
meaning  in  a  spirit  of  absolute  fairness,  and  with  the  hope  that 
I  may  be  able  to  both  simplify  and  clarify  its  meaning. 

124390—10542 


11 

In  the  condemnatory  discussions  certain  terms  in  the  instru- 
ment have  been  so  employed  by  speakers  as  to  confuse  and  mis- 
lead. The  term  "  league  of  nations  "  is  frequently  used  synony- 
mously with  "  council  "  or  with  "  assembly,"  or  with  both.  The 
words  "league  of  nations"  are  but  descriptive  of  the  organiza- 
tion. It  is  the  mere  name.  The  powers  and  duties  of  the  organi* 
zation  are  exercised  by  and  through  two  separate  bodies,  com- 
posed in  the  council  of  the  representatives  of  nine  leading  nations 
and  in  the  assembly  of  representatives  of  all  nations  entering  into 
the  compact. 

The  members  of  the  league  are  the  several  nations  of  the 
world  who  join  in  its  organization  and  such  others  as  may  there- 
after be  admitted  to  it.  The  following  nations  are  included  in  the 
present  league :  United  States  of  America,  British  Empire, 
France,  Italy,  Japan,  Belgium,  Greece,  Canada,  Australia,  South 
Africa,  New  Zealand,  India,  Roumania,  Serbia — all  of  said 
nations  being  directly  involved  in  the  war  on  the  part  of  the 
Allies ;  also  Czechoslovakia  and  Poland,  newly  created  coun- 
tries, and  Siam,  China,  Cuba,  Guatemala,  Haiti,  Hedjaz,  Hon- 
duras, Uruguay,  Bolivia,  and  Brazil  all  of  which,  as  I  remember, 
declared  war  against  the  Central  Powers,  but  took  no  further 
action.  This  inclusion  seemed  necessary,  because,  foregoing 
special  advantages  they  might  have  reaped  as  neutrals,  these 
countries  chose  to  declare  themselves  in  a  state  of  war  against 
our  enemies  as  evidence  of  their  belief  in  the  justice  of  our 
cause;  and  all  would,  therefore,  necessarily  join  in  the  treaty  of 
peace. 

In  addition  to  these  several  States,  the  following  neutrals  have 
by  the  instrument  itself  been  invited  to  become  members  of 
the  league,  namely :  Argentina,  Chile,  Colombia,  Denmark.  Neth- 
erlands, Norway,  Paraguay,  Persia,  Salvador,  Spain,  Sweden, 
Switzerland,  and  Venezuela.  These  constitute  all  the  important 
States  of  the  world,  except  the  enemy  States  and  Russia.  As 
soon  as  stable  governments  are  established  in  Germany,  Austria, 
and  other  enemy  countries,  as  well  as  in  Russia,  and  whenever 
any  of  these  countries  shall  give  effective  guaranties  of  their 
intention  to  observe  their  international  obligations,  they  will 
be  admitted  to  full  fellowship  under  the  provisions  of  article  1. 

I  am  free  to  say  that  I  would  hesitate  a  long  time  before  vot- 
ing for  any  league  of  nations  which  should  leave  Germany  out- 
side its  domains.  If  Germany  shall  sincerely  relinquish  her 
doctrine  of  world  conquest  and  her  pretended  right  to  rob  or 
destroy  her  neighbor,  she  should  be  made  a  party  to  this  world 
compact.  This  covenant  should  not  be  so  drawn  or  arranged  as 
to  compel  other  nations  to  unite  and  thus  divide  the  world  into 
hostile  camps.  So  if  Russia  shall  have  the  ability  to  emerge 
from  her  present  chaos  and  take  on  the  responsibilities  of  gov- 
ernment, she,  too,  should  be  invited  into  this  bond  of  national 
fellowship. 

Proceeding  on  the  assumption  that  we  really  and  sincerely 
wish  to  avoid  any  great  war  in  the  future,  and  that  we  really 
believe  what  wo  say,  assuming  that  we  are  willing  to  do  our 
part  to  accomplish  such  ;in  understanding — and  in  my  opinion 
the  mere  pledge  of  this  Government  in  conjunction  with  the 
other  European  Stales  would  produce  this  result,  and  we  should 
never  be  required  to  enlist  a  single  soldier  or  lire  a  single  gun 
to  assure  such  peaceful  settlement — let  us  proceed  to  analyze 

124390 — 1<).-,42 


12 

the  instrument  for  the  purpose  of  determining,  first,  whether 
the  adoption  of  its  provisions  would  accomplish  the  purposes 
sought ;  second,  whether  any  of  its  provisions  would  operate  to 
the  Injury  of  the  United  States. 

CONSTRUCTION  OF  PROVISIONS. 

Mr.  President,  the  spirit  of  sympathy  or  hostility,  which  more 
or  less  influences  every  mind,  very  often  leads  us  into  strained 
constructions  to  meet  such  sentiments.  If  we  set  out  to  search 
for  faults,  we  are  apt  to  look  only  for  words  or  sentences  or  as- 
sumptions to  support  our  purposes. 

Admitting,  as  I  do,  that  I  sincerely  wish  for  the  adoption  of 
such  a  covenant,  I  shall  nevertheless  try  to  give  to  the  proposed 
instrument  its  true  and  natural  construction. 

The  first  and  most  important  rule  in  the  construction  of  any 
law,  contract,  or  document  is  that  it  shall  be  so  construed  as 
to  effectuate  its  purposes ;  and  when  those  purposes  are  de- 
dared  in  the  instrument  itself,  we  must  accept  the  declaration 
made  in  the  instrument  and  not  substitute  our  own  views  as 
to  what  might  have  been  the  purpose  of  the  makers  of  the  instru- 
ments. 

While  to  my  mind  the  preamble  is  somewhat  vague  and  cjumsy, 
I  do  not  think  anyone  will  question  that  the  following  are  the 
purposes  which  it  intends  to  convey : 

1.  International   cooperation   to   achieve   international   peace 
and  security. 

2.  The  acceptance  of  obligations  not  to  resort  to  war  to  settle 
international  disputes. 

3.  To  prescribe  what  are  just   and   honorable   relations  be- 
tween nations.     We  have  not  done  so  heretofore. 

4.  To  establish  the  understanding  of  international  law  as  a 
rule  of  conduct  among  governments.    We  have  never  had  such  an 
understanding  heretofore. 

5.  To  maintain  a  just  and  scrupulous  respect  for  all  treaty 
obligations. 

The  second,  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  declared  purposes  are  all 
to  subserve  the  first  great  purpose — the  achievement  and  main- 
tenance of  international  peace  and  security. 

Is  not  every  one  of  these  purposes  most  laudable,  most  hon- 
orable, most  devoutly  to  be  prayed  for? 

One  of  the  necessary  tilings  to  be  agreed  upon  is  to  establish 
the  understanding  of  international  laws  as  a  rule  of  conduct 
among  governments.  About  the  only  international  law  we  now 
have  is  a  set  of  rules  generally  acquiesced  in  by  warring  na- 
tions, governing  the  action  of  belligerents  and  neutrals  when 
war  is  on.  What  the  world  has  been  needing  for  thousands  of 
years  has  been  not  a  code  governing  war  but  an  international 
code  which  should  define  the  duties  and  relations  of  nations  in 
their  intercourse  with  and  relations  to  each  other  in  times 
of  peace,  and  thereby  make  war  practically  impossible.  There 
is  an  international  understanding  or  law  which  recognizes  and 
limits  the  right  of  blockade,  the  seizure  of  ships  and  cargoes 
of  neutral  vessels  when  war  is  on,  a  rule  that  no  belligerent 
shall  sink  the  merchant  ship  of  a  neutral  without  warning,  and 
that  the  question  of  whether  the  ship  or  cargo  is  subject  to  con- 
fiscation shall  be  determined  by  a  prize  court.  But  there  is  not 
now,  and  therw  never  has  been,  a  rule  of  international  law  that 
prohibits  any  nation  from  making  a  war  of  conquest  agaiust  a 

124390-^19542 


13 

weaker  nation  or  committing  any  character  of  atrocity  or 
brutality  against  such  weaker  nation.  When  Germany  declared 
war  against  France  and  Belgium,  when  she  initiated  this  war 
for  the  purpose  of  robbing  her  weaker  neighbors  she  was  guilty 
of  no  breach  of  international  law.  To-day,  so  far  as  interna- 
tional law  is  concerned,  any  nation  can  commit  any  act  of 
atrocity  or  brutality  against  any  other  nation  without  laying 
itself  open  to  the  charge  of  general  international  misconduct. 
There  is  nothing  to-day  iii  any  international  law  which  makes  it 
the  duty  of  the  honorable  nations  of  the  world  to  pi-event  the 
most  heinous  offenses  committed  by  any  dishonorable  nation. 
The  time  has  now  arrived  for  the  world  to  declare  that  a  war 
by  one  or  more  nations  for  conquest  and  plunder  and  wrong  of 
any  kind  is  a  breach  of  international  law  against  every  other 
nation  of  the  world  and  a  cause  for  war  against  the  offending 
nation,  and  the  only  way  to  make  that  an  international  law  is 
for  the  nations  to  agree  that  it  is  a  world  concern,  and  the  only 
Way  to  make  it  a  living  precept  is  for  the  nations  of  the  world 
to  agree  that  they  will  enforce  it.  That  is  just  what  this  league 
agreement  does.  It  is  a  simple  proposition.  Those  who  wish 
war,  those  who  are  less  concerned  about  international  right  and 
justice  than  they  are  about  personal  interest  or  political  advan- 
tage would  naturally  be  against  a  proposition  of  this  kind. 
Those  who  have  the  capacity  to  realize  the  horrors  of  this  war 
and  the  conscience  to  wish  to  defend  the  world  from  another 
ought  to  be  earnest  advocates  of  some  constructive  plan  to  bring 
about  the  result.  If  this  is  not  the  best  plan,  formulate  and  pre- 
sent a  better  one,  which  will  stand  a  chance  of  adoption  by  all  the 
leading  nations  of  the  world. 

Had  the  world  powers  had  such  an  agreement  in  July,  1914, 
with  this  Nation  as  a  signatory  power,  does  anyone  for  an 
Instant  believe  that  Germany  would  have  made  this  war?  Mr. 
President,  the  haughty  sword  of  Wilhelni  would  never  have 
been  drawn,  not  a  soldier  would  have  had  to  be  raised  for  world 
defense,  not  a  life  would  have  been  sacrificed,  and  not  a  dollar 
of  debt  piled  up  for  future  generations  to  pay.  The  fact  that 
we  had  no  such  world  agreement  made  this  damnable  war  pos- 
sible. If  we  now  refuse  to  join  other  nations  in  such  a  com- 
pact, the  responsibility  for  another  such  damnable  war  will 
rest  upon  us. 

UNFAIR  CRITICISM   (ART.  10). 

Mr.  President,  in  connection  with  the  processes  by  which  these 
purposes  are  to  be  accomplished,  let  us  examine  into  the  code 
of  international  ethics  on  which  these  nations  agree  in  their 
relations  with  each  other.  Considering  them  in  relative  im- 
portance rather  than  in  the  order  in  which  they  may  appear  in 
the  text,  they  are: 

1.  The  members  of  tho  league  agree  to  respect  *  *  *  the  terri- 
torial integrity  of  every  other  member  of  the  league.  (Art.  10.) 

We  hear  talk  of  eliminating  this  provision.  Mr.  President, 
the  right  to  live  as  a  nation  is  inseparable  from  the  right  to 
occupy  exclusively  a  definite  area  of  God's  green  earth.  Agree- 
ment to  respect  this  right  is  the  very  foundation  of  any  agree- 
ment to  maintain  international  peace.  The  structure  of  inter- 
national peace  must  necessarily  be  bottomed  on  the  maintenance 
of  this  inviolable  right  of  territory. 
12-4390—19542 


2.  The  members  of  the  league  undertake  to  preserve  the  territorial 
integrity  only  against  external  aggression. 

This,  again,  is  as  it  should  be.  A  community  of  landowners, 
where  there  is  no  other  law  to  appeal  to  for  the  protection  of 
individual  right,  may  most  properly  unite  to  protect  the  land 
of  each  and  every  one  against  the  avariciously  inclined  of  any 
one  or  more  of  them.  As  to  what  the  owner  of  any  tract  of 
land  may  do  concerning  his  own,  how  he  may  divide  his  acreage 
among  his  children,  the  community  has  nothing  to  do.  But 
ft  has  the  right  to  say  that  no  one  shall  take  the  land  of  his 
neighbor  by  force.  So,  if  the  people  of  Russia  wish  to  divide 
their  territory  into  three  or  more  separate  countries,  that  is 
their  concern.  The  league  has  nothing  to  do  with  her  internal 
broils  or  divisions.  All  the  league  can  do  and  all  it  ought  to 
do  is  to  say  to  every  other  country,  "  Hands  off." 

I  can  understand,  and  do  xinderstand,  how  the  Pan-German- 
ists,  having  sought  to  despoil  France  of  her  territory  and  having 
failed,  are  now  looking  forward  to  the  conquest  of  Poland  and 
Russia,  and  how  such  Pan-Germanists  view  with  earnest  dis- 
approval this  world  doctrine  of  "  hands  off  " ;  but  I  can  not  see 
how  any  intelligent  man,  capable  of  realizing  what  Pan-Ger- 
manism has  inflicted  upon  the  innocent  people  of  the  world,  can 
oppose  this  doctrine  of  territorial  sanctity. 

It  has  been  asserted  and  reasserted  in  all  the  false  attacks 
on  this  instrument  that  the  United  States  would  be  compelled 
to  help  Great  Britain  preserve  her  domains  against  her  own  in- 
ternal revolutions  or  rebellions.  Oh,  Mr.  President,  nothing  could 
be  more  false.  India,  Canada,  Australia,  Ireland,  and  Scotland,  or 
any  other  British  possession  or  integral  part  of  the  Empire,  may 
assert  and  maintain  its  independence,  and  we  are  in  no  way, 
under  this  instrument,  compelled  to  come  to  the  assistance  of  the 
mother  country.  It  is  only  against  "  external  aggression  "  that 
the  league  assures  its  protection.  If  the  league  were  once  to  ad- 
mit that  an  outside  country  might  interfere  to  assist  any  integral 
part  of  the  Government  to  secure  its  independence,  the  league 
would  be  absolutely  helpless,  because,  admitting  such  a  right,  any 
propaganda  could  stir  up  an  insurrection,  and,  on  the  theory  of 
assistance,  inaugurate  a  war  of  aggression.  German  propaganda 
would  h'nd  ample  opportunity  to  stir  up  insurrection  on  her  own 
eastern  border,  or  even  in  Alsace  and  Lorraine,  and  begin  again 
the  struggle  for  world  dominion. 

The  claim  reiterated  again  and  again  by  those  who  oppose  a 
league  of  nations  that  this  country  could  be  called  upon  to  bolster 
up  disintegrating  countries  is  so  clearly  false  that  I  can 
scarcely  understand  how  anyone  having  any  regard  for  fairness 
could  possibly  make  it.  That  there  might  be  no  possible  mis- 
understanding as  to  the  scope  of  the  obligation  imposed ;  that 
there  might  be  no  possible  claim  that  the  league  must  guarantee 
the  boundaries  of  a  nation  changed  by  revolution  or  secession  or 
Internal  dissension,  the  conferees  carefully  limited  the  protection 
which  should  be  accorded  each  State  to  a  defense  against  exter- 
nal aggression,  thereby  clearly  negativing  any  claim  that  any 
country  could  be  called  upon  to  defend  another  if  it  failed  to  so 
conduct  itself  toward  every  other  section  of  its  domain  as  to  re- 
tain the  loyalty  of  the  people  of  such  .section.  Such  a  claim  is 
an  appeal  to  national  animosities  and  not  an  appeal  to  either 
reason  or  right. 
124300— 19ii42 


15 

"  But,"  say  our  antagonists,  "  you  purpose  to  maintain  the  lif& 
of  decaying  nations,  and  thereby  stay  all  progress  in  the  world." 
I  deny  it.  We  recognize  that  the  immutable  law  of  disintegra- 
tion, which  brings  the  feebleness  of  age  and  final  dissolution  of 
the  body,  must  operate  upon  nations  as  upon  individuals.  We 
permit  men  to  die  of  old  age  in  this  country,  but  we  make  a  law 
against  murdering  them.  Section  10  permits  any  country  to  dis- 
integrate from  any  internal  cause ;  it  simply  makes  international 
murder  an  international  crime.  There  is,  and  can  be,  no  argu- 
ment either  against  the  righteousness  of  this  principle  or  the 
duty  of  right-minded  nations  to  maintain  it. 

3.  The  members  of  the  league  undertake  to  preserve  the  political  in- 
dependence of  all  members  of  the  league. 

Of  course,  Mr.  President,  the  protection  of  the  territorial  in- 
tegrity would  be  of  no  avail  to  a  nation  if  its  political  inde- 
pendence were  destroyed.  Its  people  could  be  exploited  and 
enslaved  and  the  incitement  to  so  exploit  and  enslave  would 
be  all  the  greater  if  the  State  should  be  vassal  while  the  ter- 
ritory remained  foreign  to  the  superior  power. 

4.  The   members   of   the    league    agree    to    the    reduction    of   national 
armaments  to  the  lowest  point  consistent  with  national  safety  and  the 
enforcement  by  common  action  of  international  obligations. 

Mr.  President,  one  of  the  greatest  burdens  imposed  upon  the 
peoples  of  the  world  has  been  that  of  maintaining  means  of 
defense  against  each  other.  Prior  to  this  war  three-fourths  of 
all  the  revenues  of  the  great  nations  were  raised  for  the  purpose 
of  war  or  defense  against  war.  After  the  close  of  this  war 
nine-tenths  of  all  the  taxes  and  immensely  increased  taxes  will 
be  required  for  the  payment  of  interest  on  war  debts,  a  sinking 
fund  to  take  care  of  the  principal,  and  to  maintain  armies 
and  navies  to  watch  each  other. 

If  we  would  only  stop  to  contemplate  how  everlastingly 
ridiculous  would  be  the  position  of  each  citizen  if  to-day  one- 
half  of  all  his  work  and  energy  were  required  in  the  manu- 
facture of  implements  and  weapons,  in  building  barriers  to  de- 
fend himself  against  his  neighbor — how  ridiculous  would  be  our 
condition  if  every  man  were  filled  with  apprehension  and  with 
certain  knowledge  that  every  other  person  was  more  or  less 
jealous  of  him  and  was  at  perfect  liberty  to  take  his  life  and 
property,  we  should  then  better  realize  the  like  ridiculous  posi- 
tion of  continuing  these  same  relations  among  nations. 

Mr.  President,  thousands  of  years  ago,  in  the  gradual,  pro- 
gressive enlightenment  of  humanity,  there  came  a  day  when 
the  right,  theretofore  conceded  to  the  strong,  to  murder  his 
fellow  being,  to  seize  his  property,  to  enslave  his  children,  began 
to  be  questioned  by  the  little  communities,  began  to  be  con- 
sidered a  matter  of  concern  to  all  of  them,  and  so  the  people 
got  together  and  said  to  the  stronger  man,  the  man  who  could 
swing  the  bigger  club:  "  While  you"  may  be  more  powerful  than 
any  one  of  us,  you  are  not  more  powerful  than  all  of  us,  and 
we  have  concluded  to  inaugurate  a  new  community  code  which 
shall  protect  the  weak  from  the  strong.  We  therefore  com- 
mand you  to  lay  down  that  club  and  submit  your  difference 
with  your  neighbors  to  the  judgment  of  good  men  who  shall  be 
selected  by  the  community,  and  it!  you  refuse  to  do  so  we  will 
compel  you  to  do  so."  Naturally  this  stronger  man  said  :  "  That 
is  an  interference  with  my  sovereign  rights.  If  I  agree  to  do 
124390—19342 


16 

that,  I  shall  be  surrendering  my  sovereignty  and  shall  lose  my  in- 
dependence. While  I  may  desist  from  doing  those  things  which 
you  consider  unjust,  I  could  not  bind  myself  by  an  agreement 
not  to  do  them,  because  I  would  thereby  allow  my  neighbors  to 
pass  judgment  on  what  I  ought  to  do,  and  that  would  be  a 
clear  violation  of  my  constitutional  prerogatives."  But  he  did 
consent  and  agree,  just  as  you  and  I  have  consented  and  agreed 
to  substitute  a  government  of  law  for  a  government  of  brute 
force. 

And,  Mr.  President,  from  that  final  decision  forced  upon  com- 
munities by  the  atrocities  committed  by  the  stronger  man,  from 
that  period  began  a  system  which  developed  into  the  courts  of 
to-day,  with  their  well-defined  powers  and  jurisdiction,  govern- 
ing every  individual  right.  All  that  the  world  has  since  accom- 
plished in  progress,  in  enlightenment,  and  human  happiness  has 
followed  in  consequence  of  that  decision  arrived  at  in  that  far- 
off  age,  that  the  community  would  henceforth  protect  the  life 
and  property  of  the  weak  against  the  strong.  All  that  we  now 
know  of  the  beauty  and  grandeur  of  life  on  this  earth  has  re- 
sulted from  that  decision  which  freed  each  individual  from  the 
necessity  of  expending  the  greater  part  of  his  life's  energy  in 
devising  means  to  protect  himself  from  his  neighbor,  when  the 
community,  acting  together,  responded  to  the  slogan,  "  Down 
with  the  club,  and  long  live  law."  Except  for  the  establish- 
ment of  that  doctrine  men  would  still  be  living  in  caves,  gnaw- 
ing bones,  and  expending  the  greater  part  of  their  time  in  mak- 
ing flint  spears. 

And  by  the  same  rule,  Mr.  President,  and  for  the  same  reason, 
this  old  world  of  ours  will  progress  in  grandeur  and  in  enlight- 
enment and  consequent  happiness  when  the  nations  of  the  world 
shall  adopt  the  slogan,  "  Down  with  might  and  long  live  right." 

And  yet  to-day,  Mr.  President,  the  human  family  lias  been  only 
partially  emancipated  from  this  thralldom  of  personal  violence 
and  crime.  While  the  individual,  with  a  sense  of  absolute  im- 
munity from  personal  danger,  may  walk  among  his  fellowmen 
with  all  his  undivided  and  unimpeded  thought  directed  toward 
the  betterment  of  his  condition  and  the  happiness  of  those  de- 
pendent upon  him,  this  is  not  true  in  any  sense  of  people  in 
their  collective  capacity.  Individual  murder,  theft,  and  rob- 
bery have  been  abolished,  but  collective  murder,  theft,  and 
robbery  are  still  sanctioned  by  international  law.  You  can  and 
do  punish  with  death  the  man  who  willfully  causes  the  death 
of  another,  but  you  not  only  condone  the  crime  but  you  even 
refuse  to  enjoin  the  nation  which  would  be  guilty  of  the  willful 
murder  of  twenty  millions  of  people  and  which  would  render 
defenseless  and  helpless  another  twenty-five  or  thirty  million 
men,  women,  and  children. 

What  a  travesty  on  human  intelligence!  What  a  condemna- 
tion of  international  impotency  ! 

And  why  lias  such  a  strange  inconsistency  between  the  ideals 
of  individual  justice  and  right  and  international  justice  and 
right  so  long  existed?  It  is  because  our  national  selfishness  so 
greatly  exceeds  our  individual  selfishness:  because  in  every 
country  there  is  such  a  fervent  ambition  that  that  country  shall 
be  able  to  overawe  all  others.  We  curse  that  propensity  which 
in  late  years  lias  been  driven  by  systematic  national  education 
r,42 


17 

into  the  German  mind,  while  we  regard  it  as  an  element  of 
patriotism  in  our  own  national  character. 

And  so  we  wave  aloft  the  banners  of  sovereignty  and  inde- 
pendence as  a  scarecrow  to  frighten  those  who  do  not  stop  to 
consider  that  every  compact  or  treaty  between  nations  that 
has  ever  been  adopted  or  ever  will  be  adopted  is  just  as  much  a 
surrender  of  our  sovereignty  or  national  independence  as 
though  the  same  treaty  was  made  en  bloc  with  all  the  nations 
in  a  single  instrument.  Whenever  one  nation  agrees  with  an- 
other to  do  or  not  to  do  a  thing  which  it  has  the  right  to 
decline  to  do  or  to  do,  it  does  not  thereby  surrender  its  sover- 
eignty or  its  independence,  but  it  agrees  in  honor  that  it  will 
not  exercise  its  sovereign  authority  on  the  subject  covered  by 
the  agreement  during  the  life  of  the  compact  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  other  party  to  that  compact;  and,  Mr.  President, 
the  other  party  to  the  contract  withholds  the  exercise  of  its 
sovereign  power  exactly  in  the  same  manner. 

If  a  nation  stood  upon  its  dignity  and  its  right  to  exercise 
its  judgment  whenever  it  saw  fit,  it  not  only  would  never  enter 
into  any  treaty  agreement  but  at  all  times  would,  if  a  powerful 
country,  be  a  menace  to  the  peace  of  the  world.  In  all  the 
arguments  against  a  league  of  nations  we  hear  of  the  powers 
which  we  surrender  but  not  a  word  of  the  powers  surrendered 
by  every  other  nation  of  the  world — and  all  surrendered  or 
held  in  abeyance  for  the  grandest  purpose  that  ever  challenged 
the  attention  of  nations. 

Mr.  President,  why  do  we  spend  many  hundreds  of  millions 
yearly  for  our  Army  and  Navy?  We  do  so  because  other 
nations  do  the  same  thing.  Arid  they  do  so  because  of  their 
fear  of  us  and  of  each  other.  And  so,  prior  to  this  war,  nations 
were  following  a  policy  of  outdoing  each  other  in  armaments 
that  meant  ultimate  bankruptcy  for  the  weaker ;  and  the  states- 
men of  each  nation  were  proclaiming  the  doctrine  that  being 
prepared  for  war  was  an  assurance  of  peace.  And  so  we  were 
all  preparing  for  war,  and  we  have  had  this  awful  illustration 
of  the  fallacy  of  such  a  doctrine.  There  were  many  of  us  who 
were  not  statesmen,  of  course,  who  insisted  that  a  general 
preparation  for  war  by  all  the  great  nations  was  an  assurance 
that  war  would  result  sooner  or  later.  Naturally,  we  all  know 
that  if  one  nation  is  prepared  and  the  other  great  nation  is 
not  prepared,  the  weaker  is  always  in  danger  of  a  threatened 
attack  by  the  stronger.  But  it  is  far  more  certain  that  if  no 
nation  were  prepared  for  an  extensive  aggressive  war  there 
'would  be  universal  peace.  Long  before  the  time  any  nation 
could  prepare  for  hostility  against  another  the  world  would 
learn  which  was  right  and  which  was  wrong,  the  sense  of  jus- 
tice would  prevail,  and  war  would  be  avoided. 

So,  Mr.  President,  the  conference  was  unquestionably  right 
when  it  declared  in  article  8 : 

The  members  of  the  league  recognize  that  the  maintenance  of  peace 
requires  the  reduction  of  national  armaments  to  the  lowest  point  con- 
sistent with  national  safety  and  the  enforcement  by  common  action  of 
international  obligations. 

Mr.  President,  when  this  matter  was  before  us  at  the  last 
session  this  provision  was  viciously  attacked  by  those  who  op- 
pose a  league  of  nations  on  the  ground  that  it  allows  Europe, 
whose  interests  might  be  antagonistic  to  our  own,  to  determine 

124390—19542 2 


18 

the  size  of  our  Army  nnd  Navy,  and  weaken  us  in  our  ability 
to  maintain  our  national  policies,  and  especially  our  Monroe 
doctrine.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  that  instrument  each  nation 
must  agree  to  the  limitation,  and  therefore  we  could  not  be 
bound  unless  we  should  agree  that  the  comparative  reduction 
was  just,  and  every  other  nation  would  have  to  agree  to  the 
same  thing. 

And,  again,  instead  of  this  danger  of  a  combination  against 
us,  he  would  be  a  very  poor  reader  of  European  rivalries  who 
would  not  understand  that  these  nations  of  Europe  are  far 
more  fearful  and  far  more  jealous  of  each  other  than  any  one 
of  them  is  or  ever  will  be  of  the  United  States.  It  is  the  near 
danger  and  not  the  remote  danger  that  always  awakens  rivalry 
and  enmity.  Therefore,  if  there  were  any  danger  of  national 
Jealousies  or  antipathies  playing  any  part  in  the  scheme  of  dis- 
armament, the  United  States  would  in  all  probability  have  the 
best  of  it.  And  in  any  event  the  United  States  is  not  deprived 
of  the  power  to  say  tliat  in  the  proposed  reduction  of  arms  the 
relative  diminution  is  not  just  to  us  and  refuse  to  accept  it  until 
it  is  made  to  conform  to  our  idea  of  reductions. 

It  is  most  vital  to  the  cause  of  peace  that  the  loaded  guns 
pointing  across  national  boundary  lines,  speaking  only  the  lan- 
guage of  destruction  and  hate,  should  be  lowered.  Along  the 
more  than  3,000  miles  of  boundary  between  the  United  States 
and  Canada  not  a  fort  is  erected,  a  cannon  mounted,  or  a  war- 
ship afloat.  Does  anyone  of  sane  mind  contend  that  the  same 
•entiment  of  trust  and  friendliness  between  these  two  nations 
would  exist  if  bristling  bayonets,  glistening  like  the  white  teeth 
of  a  snarling  dog,  fenced  that  entire  way?  Grim  cannon  are 
not  the  vehicles  of  international  fraternity. 

In  view  of  the  almost  hysterical  attitude  of  the  opponents  of 
disarmament,  is  it  not  strange  that  no  one  in  all  our  history  has 
ever  complained  that  when  we  entered  into  the  agreement  with 
Canada,  through  Great  Britain,  exactly  the  kind  of  agreement 
we  now  purpose  to  enter  into  with  other  nations,  that  we  were 
giving  Canada  a  voice  in  determining  the  size  and  character  of 
our  Navy  or  Army,  that  we  were  surrendering  our  sovereignty? 
Who  to-day  would  reverse  that  policy?  Who  would  erect  along 
that  boundary  line  the  engines  of  national  hate?  No  one  but 
him  who  hates  international  amity  and  glories  in  international 

But  stress  is  laid  upon  the  proposition  that  the  constitutional 
right  of  Congress  to  raise  and  support  armies  and  navies  is 
limited  and  controlled  by  this  partially  foreign  body.  I  have 
•hown  that  Congress  must  adopt  this  plan  before  we  become  even 
morally  bound.  Every  other  country  must  do  the  same.  It  is  no 
more  binding  upon  us  than  upon  every  other  party  to  this  com- 
pact But,  Mr.  President,  it  is  exactly  the  same  from  every 
standpoint  of  constitutional  legality  and  authority  as  any  other 
treaty.  When  we  entered  into  an  agreement  with  Great  Britain 
and  Canada  that  neither  would  maintain  war  vessels  on  the 
Great  Lakes  or  forts  along  the  boundary  we,  of  course,  agreed 
to  hold  in  abeyance  during  the  life  of  that  agreement  a  limited 
portion  of  our  constitutional  right  to  maintain  armies  and 
navies  We  did  not  surrender  the  constitutional  right  to  do  so. 
And  that  is  exactly  true  of  every  other  treaty  made.  When- 

124890—19542 


19 

ever  we  have  submitted  any  matter  to  arbitration  we  have  au- 
thorized some  foreign  citizen  or  ruler  to  say  what  we  should  do 
or  refrain  from  doing;  and  not  only  that,  we  have  agreed  in 
advance,  so  far  as  we  could  bind  a  future  Congress,  which,  of 
course,  is  morally  only,  that  we  would  abide  by  his  decision. 
We  have  done  this  from  the  very  beginning  of  our  national  life, 
and  it  has  never  occurred  to  anyone  to  declare  that  we  were 
thereby  surrendering  our  independence  or  our  sovereignty  or 
delegating  our  constitutional  authority.  But  a  few  years  ago 
we  submitted  a  controversy  to  a  sole  arbitrator,  the  King  of 
Sweden  and  Norway.  In  that  instance  the  decision  of  a  foreign 
autocrat  was  to  bind  our  national  honor.  Did  that  mean  that 
our  Constitution  was  shattered?  That  we  had  delegated  the 
authority  of  Congress  to  the  King  of  Sweden?  No,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, it  meant  simply  that  as  Congress  had  the  sole  right  to 
say  whether  we  would  pay  a  claim  urged  against  us,  or  would 
not  pay  it,  so  it  had  the  equal  right  to  say  that  we  would  pay 
the  claim  if,  after  an  investigation,  a  chosen  arbitrator  should 
say  that  we  should  pay  it,  or  any  part  of  it. 

The  Senator  from  Pennsylvania,  in  his  resolution  for  the 
separation  of  the  league  of  nations  provision  from  the  peace  pro- 
visions of  the  treaty,  asserts  in  the  preamble  that  some  provisions 
of  this  league  in  effect  violate  the  Constitution,  from  which  I 
infer  he  means  that  such  provision  was  never  contemplated  in 
the  Constitution  or  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  purpose 
of  that  instrument.  I  feel  quite  certain  that  the  Senator  will 
never  go  on  record  as  declaring  that  an  agreement  made  by  this 
country  with  another  country,  or  with  other  countries,  whereby 
upon  the  happening  of  a  contingency  agreed  upon  by  all,  the 
nations  shall  act  together  to  effectuate  the  purposes  of  the 
agreement,  would  be  violative  of  any  provision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. 

When  we  entered  into  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain  and  Japan 
and  Russia  to  protect  the  seals  in  the  Bering  Sea  and  off  the 
Pribilof  Islands  that  treaty  meant  to  all  intent  and  purposes 
that  our  warships  would  act  jointly  with  theirs  against  any 
people  or  any  nation  that  would  attempt  to  destroy  those  seals. 
Did  we  thereby  surrender  our  power  to  declare  war  or  to  main- 
tain an  Army  and  Navy?  And  is  it  possible  that  we  can  enter 
into  such  an  alliance  to  protect  the  lives  of  a  few  thousand  seals 
without  violating  our  Constitution,  but  that  if  we  make  a  like 
agreement  with  the  nations  of  the  world  to  prevent  the  whole- 
sale slaughter  and  starvation  of  millions  of  human  beings  we 
are  violating  the  fundamental  law  of  the  land  and  surrendering 
the  independence  of  the  country? 

But,  Mr.  President,  this  provision  for  disarmament  Is  far 
more  carefully  guarded  than  an  ordinary  agreement  for  either 
arbitration  or  for  unity  of  action.  The  fourth  paragraph  of 
article  8  declares : 

The  council,  taking  account  of  the  geographical  situation  of  each 
State,  shall  formulate  plans  for  such  reduction  for  the  consideration 
and  action  of  the  several  governments. 

Under  this  provision  the  council  does  not  make  or  order  the 

reduction.     It   simply   formulates  a   plan  for   reduction.     This 

plan  is  then  to  be  submitted  "  for  the  consideration  and  action  of 

the   several   governments."     That   means   in   this   country   that 

124.''.90 — 19542 


20 

Congress  must  act  before  the  plan  becomes  binding  even  in 
honor  upon  us.  Of  course,  after  it  is  adopted  by  one  Congress 
the  next  Congress  is  in  honor  bound  to  comply  with  it. 

If  it  is  necessary  or  proper  to  reduce  armaments  somebody 
or  some  commission  must  be  selected  to  study  the  situation  of 
the  several  countries  and  to  ascertain  and  present  what  would  be 
an  equitable  find  proportionate  reduction.  The  situation  of  each 
of  the  nations  of  the  world  differs  widely  from  that  of  others. 
Some  are  great  in  territorial  extent  and  small  in  population; 
some  great  in  population  and  small  in  area ;  some  blessed  with 
every  natural  resource  necessary  to  sustain  their  populations; 
some  dependent  almost  wholly  on  imports  from  every  other 
corner  of  the  earth ;  some  almost  immune  from  threatened  at- 
tack by  reason  of  their  isolation  or  geogra'phical  situation ;  some 
so  vulnerable  that  the  very  lives  of  their  people  depend  upon 
their  ability  to  meet  immediately  any  threatened  invasion;  some 
contiguous  to  hostile  and  greedy  nations  ever  ready  to  devour 
them  ;  some  within  zones  of  peace  and  tranquillity,  and  some  ad- 
jacent to  restless  and  discordant  peoples  whose  turmoils  are 
as  threatening  as  an  active  volcano.  Unwise  and  unjust  would 
be  any  international  agreement  which  should  not  take  into  con- 
sideration the  peculiar  necessities  of  these  several  nations  in 
determining  what  should  be  a  just  and  fair  military  or  naval 
strength.  And  so  provision  is  made  that  the  council  shall  formu- 
late a  general  plan  which  can  only  become  binding  when  each 
and  every  nation  has  agreed  thereto. 

To-day,  after  one  of  the  most  sanguinary  and  far-reaching 
wars,  where  national  life  has  been  saved  only  through  past  prep- 
aration and  the  Herculean  efforts  of  present  preparation,  it  is 
jnost  natural  that  no  nation  would  dare  render  itself  totally 
helpless  as  against  even  a  possible  failure  of  a  peace  agreement. 
National  life  is  too  precious  to  be  allowed  to  hang  by  that 
thread  alone.  Time  and  the  beneficial  results  of  such  a  compact 
can  alone  banish  the  spirit  of  fear  and  install  the  spirit  of  trust. 
But  each  nation  can  and  should  now  reduce  its  armament,  can 
and  should  lower  its  threatening  arm. 

Mr.  President,  we  have  preached  the  reduction  of  armaments 
for  years.  Now,  present  to  me,  if  you  can,  a  better  or  a  safer 
plan  than  that  provided  in  this  treaty,  or  else  acknowledge 
frankly  that  we  never  intended  to  conform  our  acts  to  our 
declarations. 

VOTING    POWER    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN. 

But  it  is  complained  that  in  this  league  of  nations  Great  Brit- 
ain has  a  voting  power  far  superior  to  our  own,  because  some  of 
her  self-governing  colonies  are  allowed  a  vote,  not  in  the  coun- 
cil, which  will  undoubtedly  settle  all  of  the  great  international 
questions,  but  in  the  assembly  to  which  some  international  ques- 
tion might  by  some  possibility  be  referred. 

Let  us  first  consider  the  fairness  or  unfairness  of  such  a 
declaration.  I  have  never  heard,  either  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate 
or  in  any  of  the  addresses  which  have  been  made  in  opposition  to 
this  league  outside  of  the  Senate,  a  full,  fair  statement  of  its 
provisions  relating  to  this  subject.  None  of  these  opponents 
have  told  their  audiences  that  in -the  council  the  British  Empire 
has,  in  fact,  but  one  vote. 

121C90—  I'.»o42 


21 

Article  4  declares: 

The  council  shall  consist  of  representatives  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  of  the  British  Empire,  of  France,  of  Italy,  of  Japan,  together 
with  the  representatives  of  four  other  members  of  the  league.     •     • 
At  the  meetings  of  the  council  each  member  of  the  league  shall  haye 
one  vote. 

As  at  first  organized,  the  other  four  shall  consist  of  Belgium, 
Brazil,  Greece,  and  Spain.  Whether  these  other  four  shall  be 
continued  or  whether  they  shall  be  replaced  with  other  na« 
tions,  or  whether  the  number  shall  be  increased— all  of  which 
must  be  accomplished  by  unanimous  vote,  and  on  all  matters 
considered— the  British  Empire  has  but  one  vote. 

With  the  approval  of  the  majority  of  the  assembly  the  council  may 
name  additional  members  of  the  league  whose  representatives  shall 
always  be  members  of  the  council. 

Thereby  they  may  add  to  the  membership  of  the  council. 
But,  Mr.  President,  let  us  not  forget  that  the  council  can  only 
do  that  by  a  unanimous  vote.  Therefore  it  is  in  the  power  of 
the  United  States  delegates  to  veto  any  attempt  to  add  a  single 
other  member  to  the  council.  In  this  council  Canada  has  no 
vote,  Australia  has  no  vote,  New  Zealand  has  no  vote,  and  none 
of  those  can  become  a  member  of  the  council  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  United  States. 

But,  answer  the  opponents  of  a  league  of  nations — and  espe- 
cially those  opponents  who  wish  to  incite  a  hyphenated  American 
opposition— the  disputes  may  be  removed  to  the  assembly,  where 
each  member  of  the  league,  including  colonies,  would  have  a  vote. 
But  that  would  never  be  done  unless  we  ourselves  should 
desire  it.  First,  because  it  would  require  a  unanimous  vote  for 
removal,  and,  second,  even  if  it  did  not  require  such  a  vote,  it  is 
almost  inconceivable  that  the  wishes  of  the  most  powerful 
nation,  the  one  upon  which  the  league  must  principally  depend 
for  its  success,  would  be  vetoed,  not  by  a  mere  majority  but 
by  each  and  every  other  member  of  that  council.  To  rny  mind 
it  is  unthinkable.  But,  first,  as  to  the  requirement  of  a  unani- 
mous vote  for  removal.  That  paragraph  admittedly  lacks  clear- 
ness. But,  applying  the  first  rule  of  construction,  that  effect 
shall  be  given  if  possible  to  each  and  every  provision,  the  fol- 
lowing acts  are  necessary  to  secure  the  removal  of  any  matter 
from  the  council  to  the  assembly : 

1    The  application  must  come  from  one  of  the  disputants ; 

2.  It  must  come  within  14  days  after  the  submission  of  the 
dispute  to  the  council;  and 

3.  The  council  may,  not  must  or  shall,  then  refer  the  dispute  to 
the  assembly.    And,  Mr.  President,  if  the  council  has  any  discre- 
tion in  the  matter  of  removal,  which  discretion  is  certainly  re- 
served by  the  use  of  the  word  "may,"  it  would  require  unanimous 
vote  for  removal,  because  the  removal  of  a  dispute  is  not  among 
the  exceptions  to  the  requirement  for  unanimous  vote  provided  in 
article  5.     It  is  only  on  the  merits  of  the  question  under  dispute 
that  the  votes  of  the  disputants  are  eliminated  by  article  15, 
and  the  unanimous  verdict  of  all  other  members  is  required  to 
indicate  even  the  judgment  of  the  council. 

To  give  force  and  effect  to  both  clauses  the  word  "  shall,  in 
the  second  clause  must  be  construed  as  directory,  meaning 
that  the  matter  of  removal  shall  be  initiated  only  at  the  request 
of  one  of  the  parties,  rather  than  mandatory,  meaning  that  one 
party  to  the  dispute  could  overrule  the  judgment  of  all  the  other 

124390 — 19542 


22 

parties,  a  construction  tbut  would  not  only  eliminate  bodily  the 
first  clause,  "  the  council  may  in  any  case  under  this  article 
refer  the  dispute  to  the  assembly,"  but  would  be  grossly  an- 
tagonistic to  and  violatlve  of  the  whole  spirit  of  the  instrument 
requiring  unanimity  of  action  on  all  matters  except  those  of 
procedure. 

I  maintain,  therefore,  that  giving  a  meaning  to  both  clauses 
of  that  paragraph,  it  would  require  a  unanimous  vote  in  order 
to  relieve  the  council  of  its  jurisdiction  to  consider  the  inter- 
national dispute.  Neither  we  nor  any  other  nation  would  change 
the  jurisdiction  unless  we  felt  perfectly  justified  in  doing  so. 
But  even  if  we  should  take  the  other  view  and  do  such  violence 
to  the  law  of  construction  as  to  entirely  destroy  the  clause, 
"  The  council  may  in  any  case  under  this  article  refer  the  dis- 
pute to  the  assembly,"  what  would  be  the  danger  to  us  of  having 
Canada  and  Australia  and  New  Zealand  and,  I  believe,  South 
Africa,  blood  of  our  blood  and  bone  of  our  bone — peoples 
of  the  same  inheritance,  the  same  ideals,  the  same  aspira- 
tions; peoples  between  whom  there  is  as  great  and  close 
a  friendship  and  .sympathy  as  between  them  and  the 
mother  country,  members  of  this  assembly?  What  would 
we  have  to  fear  from  them?  Take  Canada,  for  example.  The 
relation  between  Canada  and  Great  Britain  is  similar  to  that 
between  a  grown  daughter,  who  has  married  and  is  maintaining 
her  own  household  far  from  the  home  of  the  mother,  toward 
that  mother.  Canada  says  to  Great  Britain,  "  The  old  affection 
and  kindly  feeling  still  exist,  but  I  am  mistress  of  my  own  home, 
and  whatever  I  do  of  kindness  or  of  loyalty  must  come  of  my 
own  volition."  No  treaties  made  by  Great  Britain  are  binding 
upon  Canada  unless  Canada  acquiesces.  Were  Canada  to  set 
up  an  independent  nation  to-day,  I  do  not  believe  for  an  instant 
that  Great  Britain  would  challenge  her  right  to  do  so,  though  she 
might  think  it  wrong  or  unjust.  Canadians,  Americans,  Brit- 
ishers fought  side  by  side  in  this  Great  War,  suffered  and  died 
together,  and  I  have  no  fear  of  any  combination  against  the 
interests  of  the  Western  Hemisphere  in  which  Canada  would  be 
found  siding  against  any  just  claim  of  the  United  States.  Every 
dispute  that  we  have  ever  had  has  been  amicably  settled,  and 
I  can  imagine  nothing  worse  in  this  world  than  a  war  between 
the  English-speaking  peoples.  And  what  I  say  of  Canada  can 
be  said  with  almost  equal  emphasis  with  reference  to  Australia 
and  New  Zealand. 

But  let  us  look  at  the  matter  from  another  standpoint — that  of 
fairness  to  Canada.  There  are  included  in  the  present  league  of 
nations  32  separate,  independent  countries.  Canada  is  the  eighth 
in  population  and  the  first  in  territory.  Canada  has  8.3(51,000 
population  and  an  area  of  3,729,065  square  miles,  a  little  larger 
than  the  United  States.  We  give  Iledjax,  with  a  population  of 
300,000;  and  Panama,  with  a  population  of  427,000;  Honduras, 
with  a  population  of  .192,000;  Uruguay,  with  a  population  of 
(589,000,  each  a  vote  on  the  great  international  questions  that  must 
arise  in  the  assembly.  But  you  say  that  Canada,  with  8,301,000 
population  and  with  a  territory  thirty  times  as  great  as  all  these 
countries  together,  should  have  no  separate  voice.  Would  that 
be  just  to  Canada,  that  self-governing  country  whose  blood  and 
whose  wealth  have  been  so  freely  expended  in  defense  of  human 
civilization? 

ll>4.°>90— 19542 


23 

You  give  China  a  vote  and  she  has  320,000,000  population, 
and  yet  China  is  far  more  under  the  control  of  the  great  powers 
of  the  eastern  world  than  is  Canada  under  the  control  of  Great 
Britain.  You  give  black  Haiti  a  vote,  you  give  black  Liberia  a 
vote,  you  give  each  of  these  little  nations  of  whatever  color 
a  vote.  But  you  would  deny  the  great,  independent  Common- 
wealth of  Canada  a  right,  not  in  the  upper  house,  not  in  the 
council,  but  in  this  assembly,  where  the  only  power  that  will  in 
any  probability  be  exercised,  will  be  the  power  of  discussion,  the 
right  either  to  raise  her  voice  or  to  give  it  an  effectiveness  equal 
to  Hedjaz  or  Honduras  or  Panama.  To  my  mind  Canada  has  a 
far  greater  right  to  be  heard  in  that  assembly  than  any  of  these 
dozens  of  small  nations  which  I  have  mentioned. 

In  addition  to  those  32  countries,  we  have  invited — and  they 
will  undoubtedly  accept — 13  other  nations,  and  10  out  of  those 
13  have  a  far  less  population  than  Canada. 

And  so  I  say  most  frankly,  Mr.  President,  that  to  deny  Canada, 
Australia,  and  New  Zealand,  whose  sons  suffered  through  four 
long  years  of  this  war,  a  voice  not  in  the  council  but  in  the 
assembly,  which  can  only  be  called  together  when  some  great 
question  arises,  while  we  give  to  Salvador  and  Paraguay  and 
Hedjaz  and  Panama  and  20  other  such  countries  a  full  voting 
power  in  this  assembly,  would  be  so  repellant  to  a  world  sense 
of  justice  that  no  league  of  nations  bottomed  upon  such  an  in- 
equitable foundation  could  ever  fulfill  its  mission. 

Therefore,  from  every  principle  of  fairness,  there  should  be 
one  forum  in  which  Canada  can  have  a  voice,  Australia  a  voice, 
and  New  Zealand  can  be  heard.  That  right  has  been  granted, 
so  far  as  the  assembly  is  concerned,  but  in  the  higher  tribunal, 
the  permanent  tribunal,  which  under  this  system  will  decide 
practically  every  question  of  international  dispute,  Canada  and 
Australia,  as  separate  entities,  have  no  vote.  Great  Britain,  which 
includes  them  in  her  empire,  will  have  one  vote,  the  same  as 
the  United  States,  the  same  as  Belgium  and  Brazil  and  Greece — 
110  greater  power,  no  greater  strength  than  the  smallest  nations 
whose  representatives  constitute  this  council. 

DOMESTIC    MATTERS    NOT    SUBJECT    TO    JURISDICTION    OF    LEAGUE. 

Mr.  President,  it  has  been  declared  on  this  floor  that  under  the 
provisions  of  this  covenant  the  United  States  would  be  compelled 
to  submit  for  determination  the  question  of  immigration  and 
other  domestic  policies.  This  claim  is  based  upon  the  second 
clause  of  article  11,  which  reads  : 

It  is  also  declared  to  be  the  fundamental  right  of  each  member  of 
the  league  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  assembly  or  the  council  any 
circumstances  whatever  affecting  international  relations  which  threaten 
to  disturb  either  the  peace  or  good  understanding  between  nations  upon 
which  peace  depends. 

And  it  is  urged  that  as  Japan  or  China  might  declare  that 
an  exclusion  law  by  the  United  States  would  threaten  to  disturb 
the  good  understanding  and  amity  between  either  of  these 
countries  and  the  United  States,  the  question  of  whether  such 
laws  should  remain  or  whether  they  constitute  a  breach  of  the 
international  compact  could  be  passed  upon  by  the  council  or 
the  assembly.  There  is  no  foundation  whatever  for  such  a 
claim.  It  is  true  that  under  the  provisions  of  this  covenant  any 
matter  which  any  nation  claims  will  disturb  or  tend  to  disturb 
international  comity  and  good  will  may  be  presented  by  any 
124^90—19542 


24 

nation  to  either  the  council  or  the  assembly,  but  It  is  not  true 
that  either  the  council  or  the  assembly  has  the  right  to  pass 
upon  or  decide  every  question  which  any  nation  might  think 
engendered  international  hostility.  It  is  true  that  the  door  is 
wide  open  for  the  presentation  of  any  circumstance  affecting 
international  relations,  no  matter  how  trivial  or  how  foolish. 
And,  Mr.  President,  it  would  be  impossible  to  close  this  door 
even  partially  if  we  expect  to  inculcate  a  spirit  of  friendship 
and  trust.  We  can  not  in  the  instrument  itself  differentiate  be- 
tween all  classes  of  cases  which  might  affect  international 
amity  more  clearly  than  has  been  done  by  placing  the  domestic 
questions  entirely  outside  the  pale  of  international  interference. 
This  covenant  guards  and  confines  the  questions  which  may  be 
acted  upon  by  either  of  these  bodies  to  those  questions  that  are 
not  domestic  in  character. 
The  seventh  paragraph  of  article  15  declares: 
If  the  dispute  between  the  parties  is  claimed  by  one  of  them  and  is 
found  by  the  council  to  arise  out  of  a  matter  which  by  International  law 
Is  solely  within  the  jurisdiction  of  that  party,  the  council  shall  so  re- 
port, and  shall  make  no  recommendation  as  to  its  settlement. 

What  could  be  more  clear  and  definite?  Certainly  no  Senator 
would  ask  that  a  list  of  all  the  domestic  questions  should  be 
enumerated.  Their  number  is  legion.  There  are,  however,  a 
large  number  of  purely  domestic  questions  which  naturally 
awaken  international  opposition  or  resentment.  Great  Britain, 
being  a  great  manufacturing  country,  might  feel  aggrieved  that 
we  erect  a  tariff  wall  against  everything  which  she  produces, 
while  she  allows  the  importation  of  everything  we  produce  into 
her  territory  free  from  any  tariff  levy.  But  neither  Great 
Britain  nor  any  other  country  has  ever  denied  our  national 
right  to  do  so.  So  China  might  complain  of  the  Chinese  exclu- 
sion law,  a  law  which  excludes  Chinese  from  our  country,  while 
we  enjoy  perfect  freedom  of  settlement  in  China.  But  no  China- 
man, no  matter  how  wise  or  ignorant,  has  ever  questioned  the 
fact  that  the  subject  is  purely  a  domestic  one. 

Mr.  President,  we  have  4,000  years  of  recorded  history  from 
which  to  draw  our  precedents  to  determine  what  subjects  are 
clearly  within  the  domain  of  sovereign  or  domestic  powers  of 
an  independent  State.  It  would  be  foolish  to  attempt  to  set 
them  out  in  detail.  They  are  evidenced  by  the  yearly  legisla- 
tion turned  out  in  thousands  of  tons  from  the  legislative  halls 
of  every  free  and  independent  country-  There  is  probably  no 
subject  in  the  world  on  which  great  nations  would  be  so  fully 
in  accord  as  on  the  question  of  what  is  a  domestic  question  and 
within  the  exclusive  power  of  an  independent  State.  Of  course, 
it  would  be  within  the  right  of  Japan  to  present  the  claim  that 
our  exclusion  law  was  distasteful  to  her  people,  and,  therefore, 
affected  our  good  relations  with  her.  But  no  intelligent  states- 
man of  Japan  or  any  other  country  in  the  world  would  ever 
suggest  that  the  exercise  of  such  a  power  was  not  the  exercise 
of  a  purely  domestic  right. 

Mr.  POMERENE.  Has  the  Senator  from  North  Dakota  ever 
heard  it  even  suggested  by  anyone,  except  those  who  are  con- 
juring up  objections  to  the  league,  that  the  subject  of  immigra- 
tion was  not  a  domestic  question? 

Mr.  McCUMBER.  Never  in  the  world.  It  never  has  been, 
and  it  never  will  be.  The  right  of  petition  is  guaranteed 
124390— 19o42 


25 

by  our  Constitution.  Would  any  Senator  claim  that  this  sacred 
edifice  of  our  national  safety  would  be  jeopardized  by  allowing 
a  petition  to  be  filed  which  might  by  a  possibility  ask  us  to  do 
what  we  could  not  constitutionally  do?  Why,  Mr.  President,  a 
large  proportion  of  the  thousands  of  petitions  coming  here 
yearly  request  us  to  pass  Federal  statutes  that  would  contra- 
vene the  rights  reserved  to  the  States.  But  we  do  not  shut  the 
door  against  them.  We  simply  lay  them  aside  as  being  with- 
out  our  Federal  jurisdiction. 

But  you  say  that  the  question  of  whether  the  matter  com- 
plained of  is  a  domestic  one  must  be  decided  by  the  council, 
and,  therefore,  an  awful  danger  confronts  us.  Well,  Mr. 
President,  naturally  some  one  must  decide  that  question,  and 
what  better  source  could  there  be?  But  just  remember  that 
the  verdict  must  receive  the  affirmative  vote  of  every  State 
represented  in  the  council,  outside  the  parties  to  the  dispute, 
and  that  all  the  others  must  wickedly,  contrary  to  and  in 
defiance  of  the  provisions  of  the  compact,  conspire  against  the 
United  States.  And  to  carry  out  such  conspiracy  each  nation 
would  commit  an  act  of  suicide  by  establishing  a  precedent  that 
would  compel  it  to  surrender  its  own  purely  domestic  powers  to 
this  council.  To  my  mind  it  is  simply  unthinkable  and  not 
worthy  of  serious  consideration.  There  is  no  danger  on  earth 
that  Great  Britain,  or  France,  or  the  United  States,  or  any 
other  of  the  nine  nations  would  vote  a  precedent  which  would 
destroy  the  independence  of  each  of  them. 

But'  on  the  other  hand,  Mr.  President,  there  might  be  in- 
stances in  which  some  irresponsible  nation  might  claim  that  a 
matter  clearly  international  in  character  was  one  of  domestic 
concern  only'  and,  therefore,  not  subject  to  consideration  by 
either  the  council  or  the  assembly,  and  it  would  not  do  to  leave 
the  matter  in  such  shape  that  the  mere  claim  of  its  being  a 
domestic  concern  only  could  eliminate  from  the  consideration 
of  the  council  that  which  was  unquestionably  international, 
and  hence  the  provision  that  not  only  the  claim  must  be  made 
that  it  is  domestic  but  that  it  must  be  found  by  the  council 
to  arise  out  of  a  matter  solely  within"  the  jurisdiction  of  one 
party.  And,  as  I  have  suggested,  if  there  is  any  one  question 
certain  and  easy  of  solution  it  is  the  question  of  what  is  purely 
a  domestic  matter. 

MONROE    DOCTRINE. 

A  word  about  the  Monroe  doctrine.  When  opponents  to 
the  league  of  nations  can  not  find  support  for  a  construc- 
tion within  the  instrument  itself,  they  sometimes  go  out- 
side and  accept  some  declaration  from  some  outside  source 
as  to  the  meaning  of  a  phrase.  When  this  matter  came  before 
us  in  its  original  form  it  did  not  mention  specifically  the  Mon- 
roe doctrine.  There  was  no  question  but  that  the  Monroe 
doctrine  as  it  is  generally  understood  by  the  world,  namely, 
that  no  South  or  Central  American  Republic  should  be  subject 
to  conquest  or  domination  by  any  European  power,  was  merged 
into  the  broader  world  doctrine  that  no  independent  nation, 
whether  in  South  America  or  elsewhere,  should  be  subject  to  a 
war  of  conquest  or  domination  by  any  other  nation.  What  a 
German  may  say  to  his  constituency  as  to  his  understanding  of 
the  Monroe  doctrine,  or  what  some  British  subject  may  say  to  his 

124390 — 19542 


26 

constituency  as  to  his  idea  of  what  the  Monroe  doctrine  means, 
can  have  little  weight  with  us,  especially  as  we  evidently  do 
not  always  agree  ourselves  as  to  what  it  means.  But  what- 
ever It  does  mean  we  are  protected  in  it,  and  as  we  alone  pro- 
mulgated the  doctrine  we  shall  undoubtedly  give  It  a  con- 
struction in  accordance  with  the  consensus  of  the  American 
view.  While  I  deny  that  the  Monroe  doctrine  ever  meant  any- 
thing more  than  is  clearly  included  within  the  declaration  of 
President  Monroe,  I  would  not  have  this  international  compact 
itself  attempt  to  define  it.  The  framers  of  the  league  of  na- 
tions in  the  amendment  have  sought  to  meet  the  objections 
made  in  this  country,  that  the  Monroe  doctrine  was  not  recog- 
nized by  specially  recognizing  it.  Other  nations  have  regional 
policies  which  such  nations  feel  are  necessary  also  for  their 
own  protection  as  we  feel  that  the  Monroe  doctrine  is  necessary 
for  our  protection.  We  could  not  consistently  ask  on  this  side 
of  the  ocean  a  policy  for  our  protection  while  we  deny  similar 
policies  which  other  nations  regard  In  Europe  or  Asia  or  Africa 
as  necessary  for  their  protection. 

And  so  there  was  written  into  this  now  agreement  these 
words : 

Nothing  in  this  document  shall  be  deemed  to  affect  the  validity  of 
international  engagements  such  as  treaty  obligations  or  regional  under- 
standings like  the  Monroe  doctrine  for  securing  the  maintenance  of 
peace. 

No  one  questions  that  the  Monroe  doctrine  is  an  engagement 
on  our  part  for  securing  the  maintenance  of  peace.  The  docu- 
ment itself  so  declares.  We,  therefore,  do  not  need  to  go  out- 
side the  records  to  ascertain  the  opinion  of  anyone  else  as  to 
whether  the  Monroe  doctrine  is  recognized.  The  instrument 
says  it  is.  That  ought  to  be  satisfactory  to  a  reasonable  man. 
Certainly  Senators  would  not  ask  that  it  go  further  and  de- 
fine .lust  what  the  Monroe  doctrine  may  mean  under  every 
possible  contingency.  Let  us  get  down  to  the  very  heart  of  the 
objection  made.  It  is  clearly  indicated,  though  not  quite  specifi- 
cally declared,  in  the  address  of  the  Senator  from  Pennsylvania 
of  yesterday.  He  says : 

Never  before  has  the  Monroe  doctrine  been  a  mere  measure  of  spineless 
pacifism. 

And  again : 

If  we  embody  this  provision  in  the  league,  the  Monroe  doctrine  will 
cease  to  be  a  policy  ;  it  will  become  in  truth  a  formal  agreement. 


And  that,  he  does;  not  want.     And  again: 


auu    nj    i  iiv^    *  .v  n.  11  L     *>  »:    IICT;II    *  *••        -i-  *M  1 1     v  uu    u\.'    u\j    iiu 

our  requirements,  our  will,  and  our  force  of  arms. 


Mr.  President,  if  that  is  the  true  construction  of  the  Monroe 
doctrine — and  I  am  not  questioning  that  view,  although  I  am  not 
admitting,  and  I  do  not  think  that  I  shall  ever  admit,  that  our 
Monroe  doctrine  gives  us  an  unlimited  control  over  everything 
in  this  hemisphere — I  will  admit,  so  far  as  he  claims,  that  what 
we  have  done  in  the  past,  what  the  Monroe  doctrine  declared  to 
be  the  doctrine,  is  the  doctrine.  Then,  by  recognizing  the  Mon- 

124^-90—19042 


27 

roe  doctrine  specifically,  all  nations  have  recognized  that  con- 
struction. The  Senator  says  that  it  becomes  an  agreement— a 
mutual  world  agreement,  and  not  an  American  doctrine  or  policy. 
That,  Mr.  President,  is  not  a  just  construction  of  the  provision. 
The  provision  says: 

Nothing  in  this  covenant  shall  be  deemed  to  affect  the  validity  of 
international  engagements,  such  as  treaties  of  arbitration  or  regional 
understandings  like  the  Monroe  doctrine,  for  securing  the  maintenance 
of  peace. 

When  these  nations  thus  recognize  the  Monroe  doctrine,  they 
recognize  an  American  Monroe  doctrine,  because  there  is  no 
other,  and  never  has  been  any  other  Monroe  doctrine,  and  there- 
fore they  are  not  making  it  a  doctrine  by  agreement  but  a  doc- 
trine by  acquiescence. 

In  the  same  language,  you  will  observe,  by  which  they  recognize 
the  Monroe  doctrine,  they  also  recognize  treaties  of  arbitration 
and  other  understandings  between  nations.  Would  you  for  a 
moment  contend  that  by  recognizing  a  treaty  between  nations  A 
and  B  by  the  nations  C,  D,  and  E,  the  latter  three  nations  become 
parties  to  the  treaty  between  A  and  B?  Why,  Mr.  President,  the 
subject  of  the  treaty  between  A  and  B  might  have  no  possible  ap- 
plication or  relation  to  any  other  nation,  and  it  would  be  most 
improper  to  say  that  by  recogrizing  a  compact  between  A  and  B, 
which  might  provide  any  moans  for  its  enforcement  between 
those  two  nations,  such  contract  becomes  a  mutual  agreement 
between  all  five  of  these  parties. 

That  is  not  the  true  construction.  I  am  forced  to  the  con- 
clusion that  what  these  Senators  really  want  is  not  that  all 
nations  shall  agree  to  our  Monroe  doctrine,  but  that  they  should 
not  agree,  so  that  our  pride,  our  vanity,  may  be  satisfied  in 
asserting  it  as  a  policy  of  defiance  rather  than  a  policy  in  which 
other  countries  acquiesce.  It  is  a  rather  strange  position  for  a 
great  nation  to  take. 

I  shall  not  at  this  time  discuss  what  the  Monroe  doctrine 
does  mean  in  all  its  possibilities,  but  I  will  take  the  time  here 
to  dissent  from  the  view  indicated  at  least  by  the  Senator  from 
Pennsylvania,  that  we  have  any  right  to  say  to  a  South  Ameri- 
can Republic  that  it  shall  not  permit  whomsoever  it  may  see 
fit  to  accept  to  settle  in  its  territory  as  immigrants.  We  have 
no  right  to  say  to  Brazil,  "  You  shall  not  allow  Germans  to 
settle  in  your  country  " ;  or  to  Argentina,  "  You  shall  not  allow 
Chinese  to  enter  your  domains."  Our  Monroe  doctrine  does 
not  go  that  far,  and  ought  not  to  go  that  fur.  Whenever  the 
conduct  of  any  country,  Germany  or  Japan  or  China,  is  such  as 
to  indicate  that  their  purpose  is  not  settlement,  but  is  conquest 
or  the  acquirement  of  territory  for  the  home  country,  then  our 
right  of  interference  is  unquestionable  under  the  Monroe  doc- 

I  agree  that  the  Monroe  doctrine  does  include  our  right  to 
determine  that  not  an  inch  of  American  territory  can  be  bar- 
gained, sold,  or  given  away  to  any  European  power.  And  as 
that  principle  is  recognized  in  recognizing  the  Monroe  doctrine, 
there  can  be  no  possibility  that  this  would  not  be  a  subject  for 
international  dispute,  and  I  am  equally  certain  that  if  this 
league  provision  should  be  adopted  the  Senator  from  Pennsyl- 
vania would  be  among  the  last  to  say  that  we  had  surrendered 
that  right. 

124390—10542 


28 

ItEASONS   FOR    CREATING    DOTII    A   COUNCIL  AND   AN    ASSEMBLY. 

It  might  be  well  asked  right  hero,  why  two  distinct  bodies  of 
representatives  of  the  several  world  states  are  provided  for?  I 
can  not  answer  (his  from  any  inside  information.  I  can  not 
attempt  to  state  what,  arguments  were  presented  in  its  favor. 
I  can,  however,  see  reasons  for  it.  We  may  very  properly  divide 
the  nations  of  the  world  into  two  general  classes:  First,  the 
great  and  powerful  nations ;  second,  the  weak  and  less  powerful 
nations.  We  may  reclassify  them  again  into  the  stable  and 
reliable  and  the  unstable  and  unreliable  nations.  And  when 
we  have  so  classified  the  second  time  we  will  find  that  for  the 
most  part  the  great  and  powerful  are  also  the  stable  and  reliable 
nations.  These  nations,  therefore,  must  be  the  very  backbone 
of  this  league.  The  erratic,  quarrelsome,  though  more  numer- 
ous small  states  of  Europe  on  the  Asiatic  borderlands  and  the 
revolutionary  republics  of  South  and  Central  America,  where- 
one  autocrat  succeeds  another  as  regularly  as  the  ebb  and  flow 
of  the  tides,  must  not  exercise  such  a  preponderating  influence 
or  voting  power  as  shall  overrule  the  saner  policies  of  the  truly 
self-governing  nations  on  whose  power  and  judgment  the  world 
must  rely  for  any  advancement  toward  the  goal  of  world  peace. 
And  so  these  nine  grout  nations  are  specifically  named  as  mem- 
ber nations  of  the  council. 

Had  there  been  no  war  the  framers  of  this  instrument  would 
undoubtedly  have  limited  the  membership  in  the  council  to  the 
powerful  and  stable  governments  only.  But  the  heroism  dis- 
played and  awful  sufferings  endured  by  some  of  the  smaller 
nations,  like  Belgium  and  Greece,  together  with  the  fact  that 
they  were  parties  to  this  war,  seemed  to  those  who  drafted  the 
league  to  entitle  them  to  a  membership  in  the  council.  These 
framers  were  compelled  to  conform  the  instrument  to  meet  the 
very  many  conditions  which  faced  them.  They  could  not  be 
expected  to  be  more  logical  than  were  the  framers  of  our  Con- 
stitution when  they  gave  the  tiny  Colonies  the  same  power  in 
tiie  Government  as  the  mighty  and  destined-to-become-more- 
mighty  States  of  the  Union.  All  that  we  can  be  sure  of  is  that 
the  instrument  comes  to  us  as  a  compromise,  and  in  it  is  the 
soul  of  a  future  world  freedom.  It  is  within  our  power  to 
strangle  the  body  but  the  soul  will  live  and  ever  .seek  reembodi- 
ment  in  some  future  international  organization. 

But  as  the  council  could  only  embrace  these  nine  nations, 
It  was  most  proper  that  there  should  be  some  forum  where  the 
voice  of  each  and  every  other  nation  could  be  heard,  and  to 
meet  that  requirement  the  assembly  as  a  distinct  body  was 
provided  for.  In  its  chamber  the  small  and  the  great  meet 
on  equal  footing  and  the  woes  and  wrongs  of  any  country,  no 
matter  how  backward  or  unstable  its  people,  may  receive  con- 
sideration. 

LINE  OF  I>KMAI1KATIO.V  HETWEEX  JURISDICTION'  OF  COUNCIL  AND  ASSEMBLY 
NUT    CLKAKI.Y    DEFINED. 

Mr.  President,  I  regret  that  there  is  not  a  more  definite  line 
of  demarkation  between  the  powers  ;md  duties  of  these  two 
bodies,  the  council  and  assembly.  Much  confusion,  I  think,  has 
arisen  because  of  that  weakness  and  much  opportunity  afforded 
to  misrepresent  the  voting  power  of  each  nation.  Article  15  of 
the  proposed  compact  creates  the  assembly,  a  body  in  which  all 
the  nations  constituting  the  league  arc  represented. 


29 

Article  4  creates  the  council,  in  which  the  nine  leading  na- 
tions of  the  world  are  represented.  The  third  paragraph  of 
article  3  declares: 

The  assembly  may  deal  in  its  meetings  with  any  matter  within  the 
sphere  of  action  of  the  league  or  affecting  the  peace  of  the  world. 

The  fourth  paragraph  of  article  4  declares : 

The  council  may  deal  at  its  meetings  with  any  matter  within  the 
sphere  of  action  of  the  league  or  affecting  the  peace  of  the  world. 

The  wording  is  the  same  in  each  case.  It  is  well  to  under- 
stand, however,  that  the  word  "  deal "  as  used  in  each  para- 
graph does  not  carry  with  it  the  right  to  make  binding  judg- 
ment by  either  the  council  or  the  assembly.  How  either  party 
may  "  deal "  with  the  question  is  limited  and  denned  in  other 
sections  of  the  instrument  itself. 

COUNCIL    AND    NOT    ASSEMBLY    HAS    ORIGIN-AL    JURISDICTION    OF    DISPUTES. 

Let  us  not  forget  that  the  council  and  not  the  assembly  has 
original  jurisdiction  in  the  matter  of  international  disputes. 
Article  12  declares : 

The  members  of  the  league  agree  that  if  there  should  arise  between 
them  any  dispute  likely  to  lead  to  a  rupture  they  will  submit  the  matter 
either  to  arbitration  or  an  inquiry  by  the  council. 

Not  by  the  assembly.  Therefore,  while  the  assembly  may  dis- 
cuss any  matter  brought  before  it,  any  dispute  likely  to  lead  to 
war — and  that  is  all  the  word  "  dead  "  means  so  far  as  the  as- 
sembly is  concerned — the  submission  of  the  dispute  must  in  the 
first  instance  be  to  the  council  and  not  to  the  assembly.  It  may 
be  removed  to  the  assembly  under  certain  conditions  under  an- 
other provision  of  the  instrument  which  I  shall  consider  in  a 
moment. 

It  will  next  be  observed  that  each  nation  under  the  provisions 
of  article  32  has  the  unquestioned  right  to  determine  whether  it 
will  submit  the  matter  to  arbitration  or  simply  for  inquiry. 
Of  course,  no  nation  will  submit  to  arbitration  any  matter 
which  affects  its  authority  over  its  domestic  relations.  There- 
fore if  there  was  nothing  more  in  the  instrument  said  about 
domestic  questions  there  is  no  possible  way  by  which  the  council 
could  obtain  jurisdiction  over  the  domestic  affairs  of  any  coun- 
try except  through  the  consent  of  that  country.  But  to  make  it 
doubly  clear  that  purely  domestic  questions  are  not  subject  to 
its  jurisdiction,  provision  is  made  that  the  council  shall  make 
no  recommendation  as  to  such  questions.  Therefore  no  non- 
justiciable  questions  will  ever  come  before  either  the  council 
or  the  assembly  for  any  final  decision  without  the  free  and  full 
consent  of  the  nation  itself.  If  a  nation,  however,  submits  a 
justiciable  dispute — that  is,  a  dispute  that  does  not  involve  its 
sovereignty  or  domestic  right — it  is,  of  course,  in  honor  bound 
to  conform  to  the  decision. 

But  under  article  13  each  member  of  the  league  agrees  that 
where  diplomacy  fails  it  will  submit  a  question  which  it  recog- 
nizes to  be  justifiable  to  arbitration  and  others  to  inquiry. 
Of  course,  therefore,  it  must  itself  recognize  the  question  to 
be  justifiable.  If  it  does  not,  it  is  only  submitted  for  inquiry. 
What  then  happens  in  case  the  question  is  submitted  to  inquiry 
only?  Well,  the  first  thing  the  council  does  is  to  endeavor  to 
124390—19542 


30 

effect  a  settlement  of  such  dispute.  And  if  Its  efforts  are  suc- 
cessful it  will  make  a  public  statement  giving  such  facts  ami 
explanations  regarding  the  dispute  and  the  terms  of  settlement 
as  the  council  may  deem  appropriate. 

If  the  dispute  is  not  settled  the  council  rfiall  make  and  publish 
a  report  containing  a  statement  of  the  facts  of  the  dispute  and 
the  recommendations  which  are  deemed  just  and  proper  in  re- 
gard to  it  That  is  the  extent  of  Its  power.  If  the  award  Is 
unanimously  agreed  to  by  the  members  of  the  council  other 
than  the  representatives  of  the  disputing  parties,  these  dis- 
putants agree  by  entering  the  league  that  they  will  not  go  to 
war  with  any  party  to  the  dispute  which  complies  with  the 
recommendation  of  the  council.  But  this  is  only  binding  upon 
them  in  case  the  report  is  unanimously  agreed  to  by  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  council  except  the  disputants. 

If  the  report  is  not  unanimously  agreed  to  by  the  members 
other  than  the  disputants,  then  the  members  of  the  league— and 
here  we  get  back  to  the  members  of  the  league,  and  not  the  coun- 
cil—reserve to  themselves  the  right  to  take  such  action  as  they 
shall  consider  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  right  and  justice. 
What  is  the  meaning  of  that?  It  simply  means  that  in  such  case 
the  council  has  failed  to  bring  about  the  reconciliation,  and  all 
members  of  the  league,  not  the  council  or  the  assembly,  but 
members  of  the  league,  may  consider  the  matter  and  attempt  a 
reconciliation  outside  the  council. 

Mr  President,  most  jealously  has  each  nation  guarded  against 
the  possibility  of  any  real  danger  to  its  independence  and  sov- 
erei<"iity  But  those  who  are  fearful  of  some  hidden  danger  in 
the&possible  removal  of  the  question  from  the  council  to  the 
assembly  should  read  the  ninth  paragraph  of  article  15,  which 
provides : 

111  anv  case  referred  1o  the  assembly  all  the  provisions  of  this  article 
and  of  article  12  relating  to  the  action  and  powers  of  the  council  shall 
apply  to  the  action  and  powers  of  the  assembly. 

Now  what  are  the  provisions  of  article  12  which  shall  apply? 
Simply  those  I  have  enumerated,  that  they  will  submit  either 
to  arbitration  or  inquiry  any  dispute  likely  to  lead  to  a  rupture, 
and  that  they  will  in  no  case  resort  to  war  until  three  months 
after  the  award  by  the  arbitrators  or  the  report  of  the  council, 
and  that  under  article  15  the  endeavor  to  secure  a  settlement 
•will  be  as  just  stated.  The  only  modification  is  this : 

Provided  That  a  report  made  by  the  assembly,  if  concurred  in  by  the 
representatives  of  those  members  of  the  league  represented  on  the 
council  ami  a  majority  of  the  other  members  of  the  loapiio,  exclusive 
in  each  case  of  the  representatives  of  the  parties  to  the  dispute  sha 
tone  the  same  force  as  a  report  by  the  council  concurred  m  by  all 
meml-e's  tb.Teof  other  than  the  representative*  of  one  or  more  of  the 
parties  to  the  dispute. 

Nothing  is  granted  in  the  action  of  the  assembly  that 
Is  not  granted  and  circumscribed  in  the.  provision  relating 
to  the  settlement  of  disputes  by  the  council.  In  other  words, 
when  the  mutter  goes  to  the  assembly,  all  the  nations  agree 
to  do  is  either  to  submit  their  matter  to  arbitration  or 
to  inquiry.  If  they  submit  it  to  -arbitration,  it  is  of  then- 
own  volition:  if  they  submit  it  to  inquiry  only,  a  report  of  the 
facts  is  made,  and  it  is  assumed  that  the  report  will  bring  about 
a  reconciliation.  If  it  does  not  bring  about  a  reconcmati 
124300 — 10542 


31 

the  assembly,  then,  as  suggested,  it  must  hark  back  to  the  league 
itself.  When  the  council  or  the  assembly  fails  the  several  mem- 
bers of  the  league  reserve  to  themselves  the  right  to  take  such 
action  as  they  shall  consider  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of 
right  and  justice.  (Art.  15,  par.  6.) 

I  am  not  here  attempting  to  say  that  this  is  the  best  scheme, 
because  I  do  not  think  that  in  any  case  these  final  important 
decisions  should  be  removed  from  the  council.  But  I  am  simply 
trying  to  ascertain  what  the  scheme  means. 

Mr.  President,  in  20  years'  service  in  the  Senate  I  have  known 
but  one  instrument  whose  terms  have  been  so  willfully  misin- 
terpreted and  so  grossly  misrepresented  as  the  covenant  for  a 
league  of  nations.  That  some  of  it  is  vague  I  know,  and  some 
portions  objectionable  from  particular  viewpoints  may  be 
freely  admitted,  but  that  it  discriminates  against  us.  is  unfair 
in  its  treatment  of  our  country,  or  that  it  imposes  upon  us  any 
obligation  or  burden  that  is  not  equally  borne  by  every  other 
nation,  I  most  emphatically  deny.  It  is  regrettable  that  the 
mighty  power  of  eloquence,  a  power  that  often  overthrows  rea- 
son and  sets  the  emotions  afloat  upon  painted  wings  that  dazzle 
and  mislead,  is  used  to  defame  and  distort  the  true  meaning  of 
an  instrument,  the  most  important  that  ever  appealed  to  the 
heart  or  the  soul  of  man. 

EFFECT  OF  REFUSAL  TO  JOIN. 

Suppose  we  now  refuse  to  join  with  the  rest  of  the  world  in 
some  scheme  to  prevent  war,  what  will  happen?  Mr.  President, 
as  surely  as  the  sun  shall  rise  every  great  nation  of  the  world 
will  proceed  to  devise  means  for  the  wholesale  destruction  of 
nations.  The  nation  which  is  most  learned,  most  thorough,  and 
assiduous  will  take  the  lead  in  this  nefarious  design  to  manu- 
facture gas  bombs  that  will  wipe  out  of  existence  in  a  single 
night  raid  New  York  or  London  or  Paris  or  Berlin.  The  science 
of  both  aircraft  and  chemistry  for  war  purposes  is  at  present 
only  in  its  experimental  stage.  The  old  glory  of  noble  and 
honorable  battle  will  give  way  to  the  evil  necromancy  of  chem- 
istry, to  insidious  germ-producing  poisons.  Even  since  the  date 
of  the  signing  of  the  armistice  last  November  we  have  perfected 
Hying  machines  ten  times  more  powerful  than  those  used  during 
the  greater  part  of  this  war.  I  am  credibly  informed  that  we 
now  have  in  fair  prospect  of  completion  bombs  which,  if  dropped 
by  a  single  lleet  over  a  great  city  like  New  York  or  London, 
would,  not  by  mere  explosions  or  fire  but  by  poisonous  and 
insidious  gases,  destroy  all  life  in  such  city.  The  nations  first 
and  foremost  in  the  invention  of  such  satanic  methods  will  be 
triumphant  over  the  nations  whose  hearts  rebel  against  such 
hideous  purposes.  Though  the  civilized  world  was  against  Ger- 
many in  this  war  that  country,  through  her  preparedness  and 
her  plodding  study  of  death-dealing  devices,  destroyed  two  lives 
to  offset  every  German  killed  in  battle.  Her  development  of  the 
U-boat  enabled  her  to  sink  50  tons  of  enemy  shipping  for  every 
ton  sunk  by  all  of  her  enemies.  It  enabled  her  to  send  to  the 
bottom  of  the  ocean  404  warships  with  a  loss  of  only  216  of  her 
own  warships.  It  enabled  her  to  destroy  the  property  of  civilians 
of  the  value  of  fully  $25,000,000,000  without  the  loss'of  a  dollar's 
worth  of  her  own  property. 
124:i<)0 — 10542 


So  desperate  will  be  the  next  war  that  all  the  hate  and  all  the 
venom  created  by  this  struggle  will  be  infinitesimal  compared 
with  the  next.  Nations  now  wounded  and  bleeding,  struggling 
with  desperate  effort  to  build  up  their  industries,  must  so  live 
and  so  slave  as  to  be  able  to  devote  the  greater  part  of  their 
energies  in  creating  implements  of  war  for  their  own  safety. 

And  against  what  races  will  all  these  weapons  of  death  be 
used?  Against  the  great  white  race.  We  talk  about  the  yellow 
peril.  Mr.  President,  the  greatest  peril  to  the  white  race  of 
the  world  is  the  peril  of  internecine  war.  If  there  is  to  be  no 
check  to  wrong  or  crime  by  nations,  all  the  yellow  race  need  to 
do  is  to  wait  in  patience  and  bide  its  time ;  the  white  race  will 
accomplish  its  own  extinction. 

Mr.  President,  some  of  the  policies  of  the  present  administra- 
tion followed  during  this  war  have  grated  most  harshly  upon  my 
ideas  of  national  policies,  and  I  have  opposed  some  of  the  meas- 
ures recommended  by  the  President.  But,  partisan  as  I  admit 
I  am,  strong  as  my  conviction  of  party  fealty,  I  hope  I  shall 
never  be  so  hidebound  by  partisanship  or  so  governed  by  party 
exigency  as  to  fail  to  recognize  a  just  position  taken  or  a  truth 
declared  by  a  member  of  any  opposing  party.  In  supporting  a 
league  of  nations  after  this  war,  a  league  recommended  by  Re- 
publican leaders  before  this  great  death  struggle  and  by  Repub- 
lican statesmen  since,  President  Wilson  has  but  followed  the 
pathway  blazed  by  the  greatest  American  counsellors,  Republican 
as  well  as  Democratic ;  and  no  matter  how  earnestly  or  how 
jTistly  we  may  disagree  with  the  domestic  policies  of  his  ad- 
ministration, no  words  were  ever  more  truly  spoken  by  any 
President  than  that  sentence  in  President  Wilson's  address  on 
Decoration  Day  in  France  when  he  said : 

It  is  for  us,  particularly  for  us  who  are  civilized,  to  use  our  proper 
weapons  of  counsel  and  agreement,  that  there  never  is  such  a  war  again. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  not  the  moldcr  of  my  brother's  convic- 
tions nor  the  keeper  of  his  conscience,  but  speaking  for  myself 
as  just  one  American  citizen,  I  could  not  cast  my  vote  against 
any  reasonable  agreement  to  secure  future  world  peace  without 
a  conviction  that  would  follow  me  to  the  grave,  that  I  had  com- 
mitted an  unpardonable  offense  against  all  future  generations. 

124390—193-12 

o 


LIBRARY 
PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  SERVICE 

SF.P07  1990 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
LOS  ANGELES 


